Hm I». w; I ”LIV’J‘III, IIIIIHI “II"! HHHII‘ II {I In” If I I w ' IIjLI " ‘ II“: 5'. I III {III I rfl W Mfg: H"! ., q l-II‘IHIIH IIIIIIIIIIIII‘I'II H... LI}; #3, II'IIHJ iiI} I 'I- {LII III. {IIIIIIIEII . II“ [I IIM’III 1' IJIIIf'IJI h -a. ——. - A. v .. . —~..._‘~-_ ‘ - m :‘3’1; I» "w. I - ‘ . o H: . I I c , fl ‘:‘\ Q . .5 ‘ gt. ‘-. {‘1‘}. 1" II _. -:__ H. 4' . ‘ “Ill” q 'N'H: 9‘Ii14’ . [N H. t I" v ,: It” W'IIH .II'1';"":§I-:: ' I“ I~ I II III" H. ' ”I. ..' ' Hm ' my - = I“! ‘I Iz‘tm“ ml“ 'IIl: . 'h III” IIIH’I I '1.) ‘ .~‘- I. III-III" ~I . ”I, I .3 J HUI ' ”MI I”) HI HI INN“; “H. II. ‘ III” “firth. .- (.33., ANI uvehvfmi‘ull'uhfl“ IIIIII IJIIIIIII IIIfiIIII ' LII? I” Ill» ‘: I 3 mm II —~_._ -29." —‘A rfi} it} ,_ ——..__ ‘1 LIBRAR 1/ University -__ ~ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Department Chairpersons' Perception of Their Position Regarding the Requirements and Process of Selection, the Major Responsibilities and the Requirements for Job Satisfaction in Sudi Arabian Universities presente by Awad Mastour Al-Thubaity has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Education Jegree in Dr. ee Davis Major professor Date July 2, 1981 0-7 639 W)NIH!Will(WWI/ll!!!Ill/II/lW/l/Il/IIIIIIII 913103131: M 25¢ Per day per “Ls. RETURNING LIBRARY HATER! . _____________....——-——-—- ‘ is oh) p.1- fl“.\\\\ L JIEIIW ; ‘\ ' 433:5!" , ¥ Y DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS' PERCEPTION OF THEIR POSITION REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS OF SELECTION, THE MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION IN SAUDI ARABIAN UNIVERSITIES BY Awad Mastour Al-Thubaity A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1981 : 3 ABSTRACT DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS' PERCEPTION OF THEIR POSITION REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS OF SELECTION, THE MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION IN SAUDI ARABIAN UNIVERSITIES BY Awad Mastour Al-Thubaity The primary purpose of the study is to determine to what extent requirements and process of selection, major responsibilities, and requirements for job satisfaction exist and are desirable for the position of chairperson in three Saudi Arabian universities. The target population consists of seventy-two chair- persons at King Abdulaziz University, sixty-four at Riyadh University, and sixteen at the University of Petroleum and Minerals. The questionnaire used in this study is comprised of four sections: (1) five questions are used to gather informa- tion about the respondents; (2) the perceptions of department Chairpersons of the requirements and process of selection are measured; (3) twenty-six items are used to investigate the major responsibilities of the department chairperson; and (4) the requirements for job satisfaction are measured using fifteen items. Awad Mastour Al-Thubaity Of the total of 152 questionnaires distributed, 125 were collected and used in this study. The findings of the study are as follows: 1. Most of the Chairpersons at the three universities are either new in their departments, new in their positions, or new in the country. 2 Regarding the requirements for the position, signifi- cant differences were found for research background and publi- cations. However, the respondents in ratings of eight out of nine items show they consider them of high importance. 3. Analysis of the data collected on the process of selec- tion shows significant differences among the Chairpersons of the three universities. This is apparently based on the fact that Chairpersons are elected at King Abdulaziz and Riyadh Universities, while they are appointed at the University of Petroleum and Minerals. All the Chairpersons considered the same six out of sixteen items as most important. 4. As a group, the twenty-six items dealing with major responsibilities do not meet the standard for significance. But six individual items were significantly different apparently because Chairpersons at King Abdulaziz University and Riyadh University are primarily concerned with teaching, rather than other activities. On the other hand, Chairpersons at the University of Petroleum and Minerals believe they have a sound balance between teaching and other activities. The Awad Mastour Al-Thubaity Chairpersons at the three universities believe all of the twenty-six functions should be performed. 5. Regarding the requirement for job satisfaction, the items which were significantly different reveal that the Chairpersons at the University of Petroleum and Minerals appear more satisfied than Chairpersons at King Abdulaziz University and Riyadh University regarding their teaching schedules and clerical/secretarial support. All Chairpersons viewed four- teen of the fifteen items on job satisfaction as most important. 11th name at allab magi l l! radians anti must fill as mm 1 «(as ' . M, Mfi§§m§§§a§m To the memory of my parents, Mastour and Ghaliah Al-Thubaity ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Marylee Davis, the committee chairperson, for her valuable advice, assistance, and academic guidance. Also, I am grateful to my doctoral committee, Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. Howard Hickey and Dr. Henry Kennedy, for their insights, encouragement, and guidance. My thanks is also extended to all the department Chairpersons at King Abdulaziz University, Riyadh University, and the University of Petroleum and Minerals who participated in this study. I take this Opportunity to thank the peOple who helped me to distribute and collect my questionnaires at the above-mentioned universities. Finally, I am indebted to my parents for their suffering for me, and I wish them to be in Paradise. I also wish to recognize the contribution made by my wife and children. iii LIST OF TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES O O O O C O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . The Purposes of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . General Background of Education in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Educational System in Saudi Arabia . . . Historical Background of Higher Education in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ministry of Higher Education . . . . . . Universities in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . Status of the Academic Department at Riyadh University, King Abdulaziz University, and the University of Petroleum and Minerals . Administration of Higher Education . . . . . The Academic Department . . . . . . . . . . . The Department Chairperson . . . . . . . . . Qualifications and Procedures for Selection The Department Chairperson's Major Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements for Job Satisfaction . . . . . iv vii \DCDCDQO‘DWH l—‘ l-‘ 5.: 11 13 17 21 22 23 27 29 32 32 42 46 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P0pu1ation and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements and Selection Process . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . Major Responsibilities of the Department Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements for Job Satisfaction . . . . . . Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings Regarding Demographic Data . . Findings Regarding the Requirement (Quali- fication) for Department Chairpersons in Saudi Arabian Universities . . . . . Findings Regarding the Process of Selection as Perceived by the Department Chair- person in Saudi Arabian Universities . . Findings Regarding Major Responsibilities as Perceived by the Department Chair- persons in Saudi Arabian Universities . . Findings Regarding the Requirements for Job Satisfaction as Perceived by Chair- persons in Saudi Arabian Universities . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Possible Implementation Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . 50 50 51 52 54 55 58 60 63 64 68 71 78 85 85 95 103 103 109 112 121 121 123 123 123 124 126 127 128 130 132 APPENDIX A: UNIVERSITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA . . . . . . 134 APPENDIX B: LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . 156 APPENDIX C : F—TEST TABLES o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 6 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 vi LIST OF TABLES Total Enrollment in Educational Institutions by Level and Type in 1964-65, 1969-70 and 1974-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Educational Institutions by Level and Sex in 1964-65, 1969-70 and 1974-75 . . . Distribution of the Respondents According to Their Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Academic Rank of the Respondents . . . . . Distribution of the Respondents According to Time in Their Departments . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of the Respondents According to Time in the Position of Chairperson . . . . . Distribution of Subjects Between Saudi and Non-Saudi Nationalities . . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order of the Nine Descriptive Items by "Is" Regarding Requirements for Department Chairpersons . . . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order and Mean of Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Items Regarding Present Importance of Chairperson's Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Degrees of Freedom and Levels of Significance for Responses from Chairpersons of Three Universities to Items Regarding Present Requirements of Department Chairpersons . . . Rank Order of the Nine Descriptive Items by "Should Be" Regarding Requirements for Department Chairpersons . . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order and Mean of Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Items Regarding What the Importance of Chair- person's Requirements Should Be . . . . . . Rank Order, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Items 10-25 by "Is" Regarding Processes of Selection for Department Chairpersons . . . . Rank Order and Mean of Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Items Regarding Importance of Chairperson's Process of Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 14 15 6O 61 61 62 62 65 66 67 69 70 72 75 Degrees of Freedom and Levels of Significance for Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Eight Items Regarding the Process of Selection of Department Chairpersons . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Rank Order of the Sixteen Items by "Should Be" Regarding the Process of Selection for Department Chairpersons . . . . . . . 80 Rank Order of Each University by "Should Be" Regarding the Process of Selection for the Department Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Degrees of Freedom and Levels of Significance for Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Three Items Regarding What the Process of Selection of Department Chairpersons Should Be . . . . . . . . . . 85 Rank Order, Mean and Standard Deviation of the Twenty-Six Items of Major Responsibilities for the Department Chairperson at Present . . 87 Rank Order and Means of Responses from Chair- persons to Items Regarding Importance of Chairperson's Major Responsibilities . . . . 91 Degrees of Freedom and Levels of Significance for Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Six Items Regarding Major Responsibilities for Department Chairpersons 94 Rank Order of the Twenty-Six Items of What the Major Responsibilities Should Be for Department Chairpersons . . . . . . . . 96 Means and Rank Order by University of the Major Responsibilities by "Should Be" for Department Chairpersons . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Rank Order, Means, and Standard Deviation of Each of the Fifteen Items Related to Present Requirements for Job Satisfaction . . . . . . 104 Rank Order and Means of Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Items About Chairpersons' Present Requirements for Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Degrees of Freedom and Levels of Significance for Responses from the Chairpersons of Three Universities to Three Items for Present Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Rank Order, Mean, and Standard Deviation of Items Measuring Requirements for Job Satis- faction for Department Chairpersons . . . . . 110 Means and Rank Order by Each University's Chairpersons of What the Requirements for Job Satisfaction Should Be for the Department Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . 113 viii APPENDIX C C1. C2. C3. C4. C5. C6. C7. C8. C9. C10. C11. C12. C13. C14. F-Test--Requirements for Department Chairperson (IS) 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a F- -Test--Requirements for Department Chairperson (Should Be) . . . . . . . . . . . F- Test--Process of Selection for Department Chairpersons (Is) . . . . . . . . . . . . . F- Test--Process of Selection for Department Chairpersons (Should Be) . . . . . . . . . . . F- -Test-—Major Responsibilities of Department Chairpersons (Is) . . . . . . . . . . F- -Test--Major ReSponsibilities of Department Chairpersons (Should Be) . . . . . . . F- -Test--Requirements for Job Satisfaction (Is) . F- -Test-—Requirements for Job Satisfaction (Should Be) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F- -Test--Requirements and Process of Selection for Department Chairpersons for Each Item (Is) F-Test--Requirements and Process of Selection for Department Chairpersons for Each Item (Should Be) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F- -Test--Major Responsibilities of Department Chairpersons for Each Item (Is) . . . . . . . F-Test--Major Responsibilities of Department Chairpersons for Each Item (Should Be) . . . . F- -Test--Requirements for Job Satisfaction for Each Item (Is) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F- -Test--Requirements for Job Satisfaction for Each Item (Should Be) . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 166 166 166 167 167 167 168 168 169 171 173 175 177 178 1. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS The Educational System in Saudi Arabia, 1975 19 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background During the last thirty years, education has expanded rapidly. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the number of elemen- tary schools rose from 306 in 1953 to 2,987 in 1978.. The number of students increased from 40,000 to 466,000 during the same period. In addition, the number of intermediate, secondary, and teacher education schools has risen. Between 1953 and 1978, the expenditure of money for the sector of education has increased from 20,000,000 Saudi riyals (SR)* to 15,000,000,000 SR (Educational Documentation, Saudi Arabia, 1978, pp. 6-21). The government of Saudi Arabia believes that educa- tion is the major factor in affecting changes in overall develOpment. Thus, with the attention paid to general educa— tion, even more attention is being directed toward higher education as a further investment in human resources. The horizontal and vertical growth of higher education in Saudi Arabia to meet both the needs of an increased stu- dent body and the requirements of national developmental *$ = 3.33 SR plans has resulted in the development of new universities and in the Opening Of new colleges and departments within existing universities. Higher education in Saudi Arabia formally began with the establishment of the College of Shareih in 1949. Next, Riyadh University was established in November, 1957, opening with a faculty in the arts which included the depart- ments of Arabic language, English language, history, and geography (Wassie, 1970, pp. 55-59). Higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia started with small faculties and were departmentalized from the very beginning; thus, certain functions and responsibilities are carried out within each department. A recent study reports that: 89.1 percent of 202 Chairpersons reporting indicated that they thought that the academic department constituted the heart of the university enterprise. Further, Chairpersons were of the Opinion that the position was serving a key leadership role in their institutions and was vital to the success of the university . . . but there also appears to be no rising interest in the position. (Norton, 1980, p. vii) However, because the universities in Saudi Arabia look forward to improving and developing their teaching, research, and service functions, the conferees of a confer- ence on "The Message of the University" included in their recommendations that academic departments should be autono- mous in each university because each unit has its own academic and administrative characteristics (Al-Sabab, 1976, p. 113). Chairpersons are central to the achievement of the university mission. They represent the administration and faculty members and are the first among equals. This study will investigate the perceptions of department Chairpersons of their positions in Saudi Arabian universities. Statement Of the Problem Today, academic departments are the key to success- ful achievement of a school's primary mission. An estimated eighty percent Of all administrative decisions take place at the department level (Roach, 1976, p. 13). In spite of the importance Of the academic department and the department chairperson in determining the educational success Of the institution, McKeachie (1968) believes that "the department chairmen in most colleges and universities are key individ- uals in determining the educational success of the institution. They are generally ill-prepared, inadequately supported, and more to be pitied than censured" (p. 221). It appears, on the basis of available resources, that no research has been done on the academic department and department Chairpersons in Saudi Arabian universities. In addition, no information is available describing how the Chairpersons are selected or explaining in detail their responsibilities. This study will examine the perceptions Of department Chairpersons at King Abdulaziz University, Riyadh University, and the University Of Petroleum and Minerals regarding these tOpics: the requirements and process Of selection, major responsibilities, and requirements for job satisfaction. Significance of the Study Algo 0. Henderson et a1. (1975) believe that: A college or university . . . is an educational institution composed Of professionals whose mode of working together resembles that of a large legal firm or medical clinic rather than that of a governmental agency or a business enterprise. Its structure is horizontal, its activities decentralized, and its aim is effective education and research. (p. 186) To improve the college structure, the department Chairpersons should share authority and responsibility with other adminis- trators because most of the university's mission is accom- plished at the department level. Peterson (1970) believes that the department is the setting in which faculty members pursue disciplinary and professional interests and, at the same time, perform most Of the basic teaching, research, and service activities which are the functions that colleges and universities, to varying degrees, reward and encourage (p. 1). In The Confidence Crisis, Dressel and others (1971) summarize the functions of the department as instruction Of undergraduate majors, instruction of undergraduate non-majors, instruction Of graduate students, offering Of post-doctoral fellowships, advising or consulting with professors from other disciplines, participating in basic research and applied research (practical, problem-oriented), promoting discipline within the university (course require- ments, resources, acquiring majors), promoting departmental views and interests in the college and the university, pro- moting the discipline and profession nationally, exploring interfaces of the disciplines, promoting career develOpment of junior staff, attaining national recognition for the department, providing consultation services to business and industry and consultation services to governmental units, providing of scholarly and congenial environment in which to work, and providing a social and recreational network for those within the department (p. 6). This list represents the functions of the academic department within the academic institution. Because "the institutions are concerned about departmental organization and Operation" (p. ix), Buhl and others (1980) believe that: Department chairpersons and division heads do and will continue to feel the effects of that expectation as much as do deans, vice presidents, and presidents. Chairpersons and division heads, whatever the formal job description that applies to each, carry out critical management functions in most colleges and universities in this country. Academic institutions are, after all, essentially power-diffused professional organizations. Depart- ments and divisions are their basic administrative units . . . success is largely a function Of the sensitivity and sensibility with which academic Opinion leaders and decision makers address an interrelated series of issues in planning, implementing, and evaluating programmatic responses to the needs for focused inservice growth. (p. 1) Furthermore, the study is important for the following reasons. First, the academic department is the basic unit in the university where research, teaching, and service take place. Thus, chairpersons should be well prepared so that they are qualified to handle these responsibilities. Second, because department chairpersons act as representatives of faculty groups, on the one hand, and act for upper adminis- trators on the other, it is important to investigate their roles for further evaluation and development. Third, investi- gating the job satisfaction or dissatisfaction Of department chairpersons will be beneficial for the institution. The Purposes of the Study The primary purpose of the study is to determine to what extent requirements and process of selection, major responsibilities, and requirements for job satisfaction exist and are desirable for the position Of chairperson in three Saudi Arabian universities. TO reach this goal, a four-section questionnaire was used. A secondary purpose of this study is to discover the perceptions of university department chairpersons concerning the differences between current practice and what they believe should be practiced. Finally, this study will compare the perceptions Of chairpersons among three different universities: King Abdul- aziz University, Riyadh University, and the University of Petroleum and Minerals. Research Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance Of requirements for selection of department chairperson as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 2 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of the requirements for selection of depart- ment chairperson should be. Hypothesis 3 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance Of the selection process for department chairperson as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 4 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance Of the selection process for department chair- person should be. Hypothesis 5 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of their major responsibilities as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 6 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance Of their major responsibilities should be. Hypothesis 7 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of their requirements for job satisfaction as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 8 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of their requirements for job satisfaction should be. Limitations of the Study 1. This study was limited to the perceptions Of persons who hold the position of department chairperson at King Abdulaziz University, Riyadh University, and the University of Petroleum and Minerals. 2. The questionnaire designed for this study did not include all possible areas of study. The study is limited to the areas of requirements and process of selection, major responsibilities, and job satisfaction. Definition of Terms Academic Dgpartment. A subdivision Of an institution of higher education usually associated with a field Of study or academic discipline, e.g., the Department of Psychology. Chairperson. Chairperson refers to the man or woman who is responsible for administering the academic department. Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction refers to a person's affective attitudes or orientation toward a job. It is one measure of the quality of life in organizations. There is an increasing acceptance Of the view that material possessions and economic growth do not necessarily produce a high quality of life. Recognition is now being given to the importance of the kinds of affective reactions that peOple experience on the job (Hackman et al., 1977). Procedure of Selection. Procedure Of selection refers to the qualifications and the processes by which the job candidate selection takes place. Responsibilities. Responsibilities are the functions, duties, and/or activities which a person is expected to per- form (Aguon, 1977, p. 10). gig. King Abdulaziz University. fig. Riyadh University. UPM. University Of Petroleum and Minerals. Organization of the Study This study is organized as follows: Chapter I includes the background, statement of the problem, the significance of the study, the purposes of the study, research hypotheses, limitations of the study, terms and definitions, and the organization of the study. 10 Chapter II contains a review of the literature related to the historical background of education in Saudi Arabia, in general, and higher education, in particular, and of literature related to the administration of higher educa- tion and the emergence Of the academic department and the department chairperson (requirements and process of selection, major responsibilities, and requirements for job satisfaction). Chapter III deals with design and methodology. Descriptions of the pOpulation and sample, instrumentation, research hypotheses, procedure of data collection, and procedure Of data analysis are covered in this chapter. Chapter IV presents the analysis and results of the study. Chapter V Offers a summary Of findings and recommenda- tions for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Since this study deals with departmental chairpersons in Saudi Arabian universities, it is worthwhile to provide some general background on the Saudi Arabian educational system, the history Of higher education, the Ministry of Higher Education, Saudi universities, and the status of academic department chairpersons at Riyadh University, King Abdulaziz University, and The University of Petroleum and Minerals. In the second part of this chapter, the review of literature examines research on the following areas: administration Of higher education, the academic department, and department chairpersons. In regard to the latter, focus will be on requirements and process of selection of the department chairperson, major responsibilities, and require- ments for job satisfaction. General Background of Education in Saudi Arabia Most authorities identify education as the most important factor for any kind of develOpment in a nation. With the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, the government began develOpment of two major areas: 11 12 education and the resources needed to establish enterprises around the country. According to Wassie (1970), Before ARAMCO's discovery of Oil in 1938, there was neither a large scale demand for public education nor the financial means to provide it. The exploita- tion of the Oil, however, led to a need for modern educational facilities to meet the administrative and technical requirements of both ARAMCO and the government. (p. 4) In 1926, the Directorate of Education was established to supervise education in Saudi Arabia. By 1953, the Directorate Of Education became the Ministry of Education. As Molek (1975) states, the size Of the country, its geo- graphy, the nomadic nature of the peOple, the limited financial capability Of the kingdom (at that time), the small number Of existing schools, and the lack of qualified teachers were factors which challenged the new Ministry of Education in a land where illiteracy had prevailed for centuries (p. 81). Educational Documentation (1978) reports that in 1953, 306 elementary schools were established; by 1978, the number had increased to 2,987 (p. 16). As the number of schools distributed around the country increased, so did the number Of students. The Center for Statistical Data and Educational Documentation in the Ministry of Education (1979) produced a report which analyzes educational progress over a period Of ten years (1965-1975 A.D.; 1385-1395 A.H.): 13 A massive growth of educational facilities provided in the form of additional schools, buildings, equipment, teaching, and administrative staff, etc., has resulted in manifold increases in the number of pupils at all levels of education. Nearly a million pupils enrolled in about 5,600 educational institutions Of various categories, in 1974-75 represent a three-fold expan- sion Of the enrollment and in institutions during the decade; and the fifty thousand teachers employed by the system in 1974-75 are four-and-a-half times more numerous when compared to 1964-65. (p. 1) Tables 1 and 2 present data on the number Of students and schools prior to 1975 compared with the progress made within one decade after 1975. The Educational System in Saudi Arabia The educational system in Saudi Arabia has passed through different stages since the early Kuttab, the tradi- tional Mosque-related elementary school in which the Koran was the whole curriculum. An Egyptian advisor brought to the country a system that included a six-year elementary and a five-year secondary program (the same French pattern which served as a model for Egypt). A Description Of Riyadh University: The Self- Study, Part I (1975) indicates that in 1958, the structure of the public school program was changed in accordance with an Arab League decision to develOp a uniform system among its member nations; at this time, a six-year elementary, three-year intermediate, and three-year secondary program was introduced. 14 .mHoosom wmmsmcmH canmud paw maoonom msoflmflflmu .muoucoo mocmpflao HmwOOm .amuummHmOCAx Hafioomm mmOSHoch .cOflumospm >uawuo>flca mo puma mcfishom no: ocflcflmuu Honowou HO>OH humpcooomlumom um mucoppum mmanOGHN .0H .m .Ambma .cofium050m mo muumflcfiz .ucoEHHouam mcoflusuflumcw mucmumfimmm HMOficnomu can mcflHoHflmu .mucmumflmmm guano: .mcflmus: mopsaocw Omad .nowumuaoo huflmuo>acs mo puma unflshom no: coaumospm HMOficnomu Hm>mH whopzoommiumom um mucopsum mopzaocH~ "cumsemv 3ma>mm Hmoaumfiumum a "magnum wonmm ca cowumozcm mo mmwumoum .20flumucwfisooa Hmcowumopwm new mama Hmowumflumum Mom umucmo "mumsom smo.oam smo.mma Hem.mv msm.ssm omm.~¢m m¢H.oom Hence om mam . oso.oH mem.~ . ”Macao mum.qm . . mso.mm «Hm.~v mms.mm pasta emm Hma om vms.a mv~.H mmo deflowmm mmm.~ vme mo moo.ma ~vm.m mwo.m Hm>ma omens ovm.m mmv.o oar eso.vfl mam.oa smm.m Noceeamuuuumcomma mm» «as . mmm.m evm.a mHo.v Hancoaumoo> oms.m¢ mm».m AHN.H www.msfl mmm.ms mo~.m~ Hmuwcmo -m.mm mam.ma sum.a Hmm.mmH mv~.mm mam.sm Hm>ma encomm vom.m- mm».maa mea.mv mme.emm mmH.smm msv.v~m Hm>ma umuam mam.m mmo.~ msm.a mom.ma mso.¢ mnm.a Hm>ma umuamumum msnvsma calmema monemmfi mauvbma osumomfl mmuvoma Hm>mq mamamm mmxmm nuom H mnmda mhIVBmH 02¢ Ohlmoma .mmlvomH ZH mmwfi OZfl nm>mq Mm mZOHBDBHBmZH Aflca mo puma oceanom no: momuaoo Howommm pom pom wocmflom can mOflumeonumE Mow mumucmo wumpcoowmiumom mmanOCHN .GOADMOSUO >uamuo>fics mo puma measuom no: :OwumOSOO HOOflqnomu Henna: mo ousufiumcw Ono mOOOHOCHu .mH .m .Amsma .coaumoscm mo shaman“: unpmmflmv 3mw>wm HflOfiumaumum a "Manchd ficamm ca cofiumoswm mo mmoumoum .cofiumucmsbooa Hmcowumoswm can mama HMOflumflumum you noucmu "mumaom smv.a «we mmH mom.m mmo.m omm.a Hmuoa . m . mm Ho u mumcuo a N H ma OH O cofiumosom Hmaommm omm u I mmv.H sow mom coeumocum peace m u . mm as HH Hm>ma aware me Hm me we we be Nonficfimuunumnomwe m m u «n ma ha H35382, mus mm as mmm mas va amusemo com mm mm Hmm omv mam Hm>ma vacuum Ham mum ooa mmo.m u~m.a mam.a Hm>ma amuse Hmcoaumuscwuoo Adamo: mm vv ma Hm>wa umuamuoum msuesma osumomH mouvoma mansma osumoma mmuwoma Hm>mq memem Mom mcoflpsqumcH mcoausuaumcH Haa ill [II mhlvhma 02¢ Oblmomfi .mmlvme 2H xmm QZ¢ flm>mq Mm wZOHBDBHBmZH AdZOHBflUDDm m0 mmmzsz N mqmdfi 16 This 6-3-3 system, the common system of education among the Arab countries, was slightly modified to meet the special requirements and the local conditions of each country. The education system in Saudi Arabia is currently divided into the following categories: I. Pre-elementary stage II. Education at the first level: elementary education III. Education at the second level A. General education 1. Intermediate stage 2. Secondary stage B. Vocational education 1. Intermediate stage 2. Secondary stage 3. Higher technical level 4. Miscellaneous C. Teacher training 1. Elementary teacher training institutes 2. Institutes of physical education and fine art 3. Teacher upgrading centers 4. Center for science and mathematics 5. Evening training courses 6. Koranic teaching 17 IV. Education at the third level: colleges and universities V. Special education A. Maahid-al Noor (Institutes of Light) take care Of the education of the blind. B. Maahid-al-Amal (Institutes of Hope) educate deaf and mute children and teach them vocations. C. Institutes for retarded children VI. Adult education VII. Other types of education include social services and community development centers and special kindergartens. All function under the Ministries Of Labor and Social Affairs. Figure 1 shows the ages, durations Of each level, and the stages of education offered in Saudi Arabia. Historical Background of Higher Education in Saudi Arabia General education in Saudi Arabia develOped rapidly on all levels--e1ementary, secondary, teacher education, etc. This was accomplished through the establishment and develOp- ment of traditional education. The government Of Saudi Arabia realized that resource develOpment over all the country couldn't be accomplished without improving the competence of the available manpower. Therefore, the government decided that higher education was the place where the country should invest in its human resources. 18 Fig. 1. The educational system in Saudi Arabia, 1975 SOURCE: Center for Statistical Data and Educational Documentation, Progress of Education in Saudi Arabia: A Statistical Review (Riyadh: Ministry of Education, 1979), p. 7. 19 ununuv um nun-mun (Annu- I no!" unnunm ( nun": uni "van“ ( III I 111:5“? Alla) ICIICUIWI‘ (an ) Nauru mum - 0 ("ll'") urn-III m nun-null n mum-n r-avmruw-. unruunfluv m1" In. ”Lu” 0! Int-Mum“ cannula“ “Arman ( up turn! ) N0“ 7300! TVJINIIJIJ I I I I I I I l I I I I I "‘II mun-m mu! WWII IIHJ'IJ “Inna n (m)unuuln Inn-o" ”I! mm “IVYJNJQ :33; "W m" annual: 20 As stated in The Self-Study (1975), Saudi Arabian higher learning was originally directed toward the need to preserve and propagate Islamic belief and tradition, and toward the need to prepare teachers (p. 4). Prior to the establishment Of the Ministry of Education, the College Of Sharia (Islamic law) was esta- blished in Mecca in 1949; in 1953, a similar college was founded in Riyadh. As indicated in "A WorkshOp Report," these institutions were designed to serve the following purposes: to produce qualified teachers of religious sub- jects and Arabic language and history at the intermediate and secondary levels; to develOp a research center for these subjects; and, ultimately, to create a postgraduate center Offering opportunities to earn higher degrees (Molek, 1975, p. 73). These colleges were the starting point Of higher education. However, according to Molek (1975), colleges and universities are considered a recent phenomenon in Saudi Arabia, since most universities have only existed for the last twenty years. Higher educational institutions are of two types: traditional Islamic colleges and Western-oriented colleges. The curricula of most of the latter institutions are being modified to meet the needs of administrators, teachers, and technicians capable of coping with the problems confronting the country. Admission to all of these institu- tions requires completion Of secondary school. The percentage required on the certification examination in order to be considered for admis- sion varies from faculty to faculty. (p. 73) 21 Higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia are public institutions; they are free, but not compulsory. Students receive monthly allowances. Later in this chapter, each university will be described. The Ministry Of Higher Education The organization of higher education passed through several stages. When the College of Sharia was established in 1949, it was supervised by the Directorate Of General Education which, in 1953, became the Ministry of Education. The Ministry Of Education ruled higher education for more than twenty years when a special Department for Higher Edu- cation was established within the Ministry under the direction of the Minister. Contemporary educational institutions, along with nearly all other formal governmental and economic institu- tions in the Kingdom, were established within the last twenty years. The present ministerial pattern of government in the Kingdom dates from the formation of the Council of Ministers by King Abdulaziz in October, 1953. However, several new ministries were created, including that of education. Some ministries were established and Operated before the Council was formed, but these did not function in a coordinated fashion, according to "The Self-Study" (1975, p. 3). 22 In 1974, the responsibility for higher education was transferred from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Higher Education. At this time, the Ministry of Higher Education assumed responsibility for leading higher education on the basis of Islamic belief, distributing colleges throughout the country to meet the needs of society and develOping higher education to keep pace with the inter- national scientific renaissance. Since the Ministry of Higher Education was founded, colleges and universities look to it for consultation and direction. Universities in Saudi Arabia In Saudi Arabia, there are six universities under the direction Of the Ministry of Higher Education. These universities were established at different times and in different locations to serve various special purposes. Some took the name "university" from the beginning, e.g., the University Of Riyadh; others started with the name "college" and later were designated universities, e.g., The University Of Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud. There are six universities in Saudi Arabia: Riyadh University, King Abdulaziz University, The University of Petroleum and Minerals, Islamic University, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud University, and King Faisel University (see Appendix A for more details). 23 Status of the Academic Department at Riyadh University, King Abdulaziz University, and The University of Petroleum and Minerals Riyadh University Operates 64 departments, each run by a department council and a department chairperson. The statute establishing Riyadh University contains three articles regarding the department council and department chairperson: Each department has appropriate authority in academic, financial and administrative affairs. This authority is allocated to the department by university statute (Article 40). The department chairperson is appointed to a two-year term (renewable) by the college council upon the nomination of the department council and the approval Of the rector (Article 41). The department is responsible for (l) recommending and planning for the areas and courses of study; (2) assigning lessons, lectures and practical work to members of the academic staff (Article 42). The department chairpersons supervise the departments' academic affairs, administration, and Operations. They report to the dean about everything which happens in their departments (Executive Regulation, Article 6, Riyadh University). Articles 14, 15, 16, and 17, describing the executive regulation Of Riyadh University, emphasize the following regarding the department council system: the department chairperson calls for the meetings, keeps a report Of every meeting, and displays to the college council the viewpoints 24 of the department council regarding the subjects which they discuss. Neither the statute authorizing the university nor the detailed executive regulations describe a clear role for the department chairperson. Jammaz (1973) suggests that: . . . Three changes, however, might be effected to improve the functioning of the department council. It should be made specific that no appointment, promotion, leave, or dismissal of faculty members would be made without prior consideration by the department council. Second, the chairman of the department should be elected by the faculty members and for a term subject to eXpiration. Third, not every decision has an effect on the faculty as a whole; therefore, it would be advisable to have substantial authority delegated to the department within the framework Of the university and faculty general policies. (p. 141) King Abdulaziz University has seventy-two departments distributed among its colleges. The statutes of King Abdulaziz University are no different from the statutes of Riyadh University. Articles 40, 41, and 42 are the same for both Riyadh University and KAU regarding department chairpersons. In all the available materials regarding the status of the academic department chairperson, there is nothing in written form to help the department chairperson except what has been written at the College Of Science (1980 A.D., 1400A.H.). While to some extent this document explains the Chairperson's role as facilitator, it neglects other facets Of his role. 25 The history of King Abdulaziz University shows that the university has grown rapidly since its change from a private to a public institution: several colleges have been inaugurated in a very short time, and there has been a large increase Of students and activities. Modeny (1978) believes that the development Of the university system does not keep pace with the increase in activities. This results in lack of participation on the part Of academic staff (p. 21). The department chairperson at the University of Petroleum and Minerals operates differently than at King Abdulaziz University and Riyadh University. Besides serving as the communication link between the administration and the faculty, the chairperson supervises the quality of instruction and the assignment of teaching responsibilities. The rector of the university delegates the following authority to the chairperson: 1. Academic departmental chairmen are authorized to sign financial transactions for purchases in the interest Of the university, whether by means of competitive bids within the limits of twenty thousand riyals or direct procurement within the limit Of ten thousand riyals. 2. Department chairmen shall be authorized to sign travel orders to send employees Of their 26 departments under their supervision on business assignments within the kingdom, for periods not to exceed five days. Academic departmental chairmen shall be authorized to sign transaction orders for necessary air tickets in accordance with the personal regulations for personnel in their departments under their authority for assignments within the kingdom. Departmental chairmen are authorized to advance loans to staff and faculty members under their supervision, provided that the total amount in any case shall not exceed the net amount Of two months' salary. Academic departmental chairmen assign employees to overtime. Academic departmental chairmen are authorized to sign the invoices Of necessary items procured by their department and charged to petty cash. Academic departmental chairmen are authorized to refer the employees under their supervision, as well as casual labor and their legal dependents, to the university clinic for treatment. Academic departmental chairmen are authorized to reimburse transportation expenses for regular employees, casual employees, and workmen who are required to work outside official working hours 27 or whose functions require that they hire vehicles during official working hours (Delegation Of Authority, UPM, 1978, pp. 1-8). Administration of Higher Education Administrative theory has evolved through different stages. The first stage, known as the classical school, dominated between 1910-1930; the human relations school held sway roughly between 1930-1960; the behavioral school has been in the forefront since 1960 (Griffith, 1979). Griffith (1979) describes the specific emphasis of each of these stages: the classical school was concerned with industrial plants and, to some extent, public adminis- tration; the human relations school focused on industrial and commercial enterprises and, to a lesser extent, on public administration; the behavioral school works with organizations of all types--industrial, military, business, religious, educational, etc. Griffith (1979) evaluates the status of administra- tive theory applications in education as follows: The impact of the behavioral approach on adminis- trative practice in education has thus far been minimal, perhaps because it is relatively new. It has come to the fore only in recent years, and many experienced schoolmen are not yet acquainted with its content and method. Perhaps, too, it has failed to affect administra- tive practice because its synthesis has not yet been fully effectuated. The process of combining the findings from the social and behavioral studies and 28 the findings of the scientific management and human relations schools into a coherent whole is still in progress and not yet complete. (p. 32) However, higher education administration, like other institutions, can benefit from the experiences Of others in improving its methods. Thomas (1974) quotes Bolman (1968, p. 179) in his discussion of the preparation of college and university administrators: There is a growing recognition that academic administration is not totally different from the management Of other forms Of complex organizations and that, therefore, the different kinds of prepara- tion have something to teach each other, and may be conducted partly in common. (p. 11) Institutions of higher education are designed, in general, for the following purposes: teaching, research, and service. Leadership in higher education institutions must recognize that these purposes affect the organization structure. Henderson et a1. (1975) eXpress this idea when they state: The problem Of leadership in a college or university will be better understood if consideration is given to the essential nature of these institutions. A college or university has a dual nature. On the one hand, it is an educational institution composed Of professionals whose mode Of working together resembles that of a large legal firm or medical clinic rather than that of a governmental agency or a business enterprise. Its structure is horizontal; its activi- ties decentralized; and its aim is effective education and research. (p. 186) 29 The Academic Department The academic department is a crucial issue for the faculty, on one hand, and the administrators, on the other, according to Andersen (1977): NO administrative unit within the college or university has been so important, misunderstood, and maligned as the academic department. Prominent Observers of the American scene have both castigated it for fragmenting higher education and extolled it for developing new knowledge. All of them, however, have agreed that departmentalization has played a dominant role in the evolution of higher education. (p. l) The history Of the academic department goes back to medieval universities. As the amount and organization of learning increased, medieval universities developed separate faculties: law, theology, medicine, and arts. While this kind of structure is not exactly like the depart- mental form, it "does represent an early stage of speciali- zation" (Dressel et al., 1971, p. 2). In the United States the idea of the academic department started at Harvard and the University of Virginia. [In 1823, a student rebellion at Harvard resulted in some class changes. As a result of these changes, in 1825 the university was reorganized into six departments. The Univer- sity of Virginia began instruction in 1825 with schools headed by professors. These schools, which included modern languages, mathematics, and law were the equivalent of departments (Dressel, 1971, p. 3).~ 30 Dressel et a1. (1971) summarized the research of Laurence (1965) and Richard (1966) on the history Of departmentalization. Some change was effected by Cornell and Johns HOpkins in the 18803, and by Harvard, Columbia, Yale and Princeton in the early 18903. However, no institution could match the University of Chicago in complex organizational arrangements which in 1892-1893, at the end of the first year of instruction, listed twenty-six departments organized into three faculties: Divinity; University Extension; and Arts, Literature, and Science. Thirteen head professors presided as virtually absolute monarchs of departments which included staff members holding twelve distinct ranks. (pp. 4-5) The academic department found, first of all, that one tutor was unable to handle many students. Increased knowledge and an increased number of students were the main reasons behind the further development of the academic department. Anderson (1977) paraphrases Thwing (1906, p. 311): Departmentalization became necessary in these early years when it proved impossible for one tutor to teach a single class in all subjects. Even after assigning a particular subject to a single tutor, the increased enrollment brought together several pro- fessors who were engaged in teaching within a parti- cular discipline. (Academic Department, McHenry and Associates, p. 3) Complex organization did not characterize the academic department at the very beginning. It was a result of the expansion of the department and the demand from inside and outside of the universities. 31 Peterson (1970) defines the department as the setting in which faculty members pursue disciplinary and profes- sional interests and, at the same time, perform most Of the basic teaching, research and service activities which are the functions that colleges and universities to varying degrees reward and encourage (p. 1). Dressel et a1. (1971) constructed a ranked list of departmental goals as evaluated by faculty, chairpersons, and deans. In order, from highest to lowest, these respondents listed: Instruction Of graduate students Basic research Undergraduate instruction Advancing the discipline and profession nationally Advising undergraduate majors Instruction of undergraduate nonmajors Expressing departmental views in the university Career develOpment of the junior staff Applied research Service to business and industry ODmQChU'IDUJNH O I._I (p. 71) In their article, "Departmental Review and Self- Study," Dressel et a1. (1967) outline the philosophy of the department: 1. Purposes: relative emphasis on research and publication, service, and instruction. 2. Objectives: a. Educational goals toward which students are expected to progress. b. Professional goals toward which academic personnel are expected to progress. 3. Points of view about education and role of depart- ment in the university, including service and liberal education Obligations. , 4. Plans: specific aims for the future, such as course expansion, faculty increase, extension of graduate work, and research expansion. (p. 31) 32 Because the academic department has a long history in higher education, its function and influence are‘familiar. Since most Of the decision making of a university takes place within the academic department, many believe that the position of the departmental chairperson is critical.‘ The Department Chairperson Academic department chairpersons form the largest single group among higher education administrators. Roach (1976), Scott (1981) and others believe that the position of academic department chairperson is key to the effective functioning of a university. Studies of the department chairperson have examined such concerns as the role Of the department chairperson, job satisfaction, job difficulty, and leadership. This researcher will investigate qualifi- cations and procedures for selection, major responsibilities, and job satisfaction of departmental chairpersons. Each Of these areas will be addressed in the subsections which follow. Qualifications and Procedures for Selection The study by Roach (1976) regarding personal quali- ties supports the belief that the successful department chairperson must: (a) possess certain personal qualities such as Open- ness, integrity, objectivity; (b) be able to administer the departmental program; 33 (c) possess and use certain job skills and certain human relations skills; and (d) at the same time maintain high professional competence. (pp. 15-16) In his study of selected Missouri and Illinois two- year colleges, O'Grady (1973) compares Chairpersons' quali- fications and selection in small and large institutions. While chairpersons in large colleges differed from chair- persons in small colleges in stressing the importance of administrative ability, the two groups agreed on the impor- tance Of other qualities for selection of a department chairman: "teaching experience, teaching ability, ability to deal harmoniously with others, productive scholarship, degrees held, and departmental seniority" (pp. 270-272). O'Grady also reports: Nearly all large college chairmen were nominated by the dean, approved by the college head and appointed by the governing board. Less than one-half of the small college chairmen were appointed by this method. One-third of the small college chairmen were selected by the president and appointed by the governing board. (p. 270) In a dissertation titled "An Exploratory Study of the Role of Division Chairmen in the Virginia Community College System," Stull (1974) examines the perceptions held by various groups about departmental chairpersons. All groups agreed that chairpersons appeared to emphasize certain activities: (a) establishing and maintaining a working relation- ship with faculty; (b) assigning faculty teaching loads; 34 (c) listening to faculty problems and complaints relating to the division and college; (d) interacting with the administration on behalf of the division; (e) making recommendations for salary increments, promotion, length of contract, and, if necessary, dismissal; (f) recruiting, screening and interviewing prospec- tive faculty; and (g) preparing divisional reports, routine paper work and other general administrative duties. (p. 224) On the other hand, the groups studied agreed on the following future tasks for department chairpersons: (a) establishing a working relationship with faculty; (b) providing informal faculty leadership; (c) maintaining morale among faculty; (d) listening to and encouraging ideas to improve the functioning of the division; (e) evaluating the instructional programs Offered by the division; (f) facilitating communications between administration and faculty; and (g) making recommendations for salary increments, promotion, length Of contract, and, if necessary, dismissal. (p. 224) Stull finds that different groups hold different perceptiOns of the departmental chairperson role. In com- paring these groups' perceptions of the Chairperson's actual and ideal role, he finds a greater number of differences in perceptions Of actual role. Stull compares specific group perceptions of the future role Of the chairperson: Chairmen perceived the smallest increase from actual to ideal role, whereas deans perceived the greatest increase. By major role area all reference groups saw the greatest increase occurring in the curriculum and instruction role area. All three reference groups saw the least amount of increase occurring in the administration and finance role area. (p. 224) 35 In general, Stull finds no significance to college size on chairmen's perception Of their actual and ideal role; however, the chairpersons surveyed did differ regarding job satisfaction: "The majority (50 percent or more) of chairmen were satisfied on thirteen of the fifteen job elements identified in the study. Twenty-five percent, however, were dissatisfied on six of the fifteen elements" (pp. 224-225-A). Mobley (1971) comments on one crucial effect of the method of selecting a department chairperson: "the status of chairman is frequently dictated by the manner in which he became chairman. If the department executive officer is designated a departmental 'head' by the administration, he must maintain administrative allegiance while cultivating faculty confidence" (pp. 321-327). +. Saunders et a1. (1977) examine the converse situa- tion of a chairperson whose power derives from the faculty. While he/she must maintain faculty support, he/she must also gain administration confidence: "In maintaining this dual confidence, the chairman must be sufficiently democratic to please the faculty, yet decisive and consistent enough to achieve results and Obtain mutual and administrative goals . . ." (pp. l3-l4). The author describes six basic methods for chairperson selection. In the first, the dean wields all the power: he appoints a chairperson who then 36 serves for as long as the dean wishes. The department faculty have no input and may well disagree with the dean's choice. The second method is less extreme: here, the dean selects a chairperson for appointment "after he confers privately with each faculty member in the department. The dean still makes the final appointment, and there is no assurance that he will interpret accurately the wishes of the faculty majority" ( p. 13). Another selection process uses a committee appointed by the dean to search for and screen candidates. The committee then makes recommendations to the dean. If one of these recommendations is not acceptable to the dean, he may request additional recommendations from the committee. Moving toward the other extreme is a fourth selec- tion method in which a faculty-elected committee provides the dean with a list of recommended candidates from which he must choose a chairperson. The final two methods described by Saunders involve faculty elections: after the election, the dean may or may not have the Option of disapproving the person selected. Saunders' review Of research on department chairmen selection identifies five apparently inherent principles: (1) There must be formalized and meaningful faculty involvement in the selection of the department chairman. (2) Concurrently, there must be Opportunity for the dean to appoint a chairman with whom he can develOp a sound working relationship. 37 (3) There should be a term of Office or periodic review for the chairman with the provisions for reappointment. (4) Students majoring in the department should be involved in the selection of the department chairman. However, the extent of involvement will vary between universities. (5) An atmosphere of mutual trust and honesty based on good communications is an essential element in all human relations and particularly at all levels of university administration. (p. 14) In a study of 58 community colleges, Vernon (1979) gathered data on division chairperson selection and staff perceptions. Almost 70 percent of the colleges studied used "selective procedures," usually administrative appoint- ment methods, which make the chairperson accountable to the tOp administrative Officer. The chief advantage of the appointment process was that appointed chairpersons are truly representatives of the administration: the chief disadvantage was felt to be a loss of faculty identity. The respondents felt there was little advantage to the elective process. The advantages they noted included: the faculty was better represented and had a part in determining their leader- ship, that the process can involve all school segments, and that morale is higher. Some disadvantages that were cited related to role confusion and problems of loyalty and impartiality in evaluation of the respon- dents; 41 favored a system Of administrative appoint- ment. (p. l) d' The most recent ideas about the skills needed by department chairpersons were eXpressed in a presentation, "DevelOping the Administrative Skills Of Chairpersons" at the National Conference on Higher Education Of the American Association for Higher Education on March 6, 1980. Lance C. Buhl, George W. Jeffries, Jack Lindquist, and Neal Malicky 38 concurred that department chairpersons and division heads feel the effects Of administrative expectation as much as deans, vice presidents, and presidents. Chairpersons and division heads, regardless of their respective formal job descriptions, carry out critical management functions in most colleges and universities in the United States. Academic institutions are, after all, essentially power- diffused professional organizations in which departments and divisions are basic administrative units. Thus, the personal desire which activates academic leaders to grow professionally as competent administrators--to develOp new knowledge and acquire new or refine existing skills-- increasingly will become a matter of formal institutional concern (p. 1). ;£ While Buhl, Jeffries, Lindquist and Malicky expressed intersecting ideas, each had a different perspective on these issues. Each researcher has a special role in a two- year interinstitutional pilot project (The Administrative DevelOpment Fellowship Program) in administrative develOp- ment for thirty-eight chairpersons and division heads in northern Ohio. They each responded to the following question: What are the essential leadership (and/or managerial) skills that chairpersons need to have or to develop? a, Jeffries believes that there are three major sources Of data related to administrative develOpment needs which 39 can be quite helpful: (a) self-assessment, (b) supervisor- assessment, and (c) assessment by those being supervised (faculty). In all three areas, the use of mutually accept- able pre-established criteria lends legitimacy to the evaluation process. The tasks required Of the position (what) as well as the process through which the responsi- bilities are carried out (how) should be of equal concern in the administrative evaluation process (p. 3). q__Malicky believes that it is important that persons in such positions have the expertise to do their jobs well since colleges can benefit from the skills and perspectives that individuals with diverse experiences can bring to us. We also owe it to them, as well as to our institutions, to help them understand the goals Of the total institution (p. 5). {1 Buhl points out that the leadership skills which chairpersons need are those which enable them to: - clarify the nature and demands of their roles as "the middle" in a changing organization; - clarify what they believe about people, tempered on a broad base of knowledge about how peOple actually behave in organizations; - create a network of mutually supportive profes- sional relationships among administrators; - use strong interpersonal skills to assist others (especially members of their departments) to 40 clarify expectations and work toward shared goals, to navigate through the tough but unavoidable system of professional evaluation and develOpment; - dedicate themselves to human resource develOp- ment (their own and others); - willingly exercise their influence (p. 8).' Finally, Lindquist presents a list of what a chair- person should be able tO do: fi¥.1. Articulate the "big picture"; that is, develOp clarity about and commitment to the goals of the institution and one's own values and philOSOphy Of education. Conceptualize the nature Of complex human organi- zations--group and organizational dynamics, cycles Of human develOpment, the inevitability and para- doxes of change, and the nature of leadership. Develop honest personal insight about one's own needs, Objectives, current place in the life cycle, personal style, and personal effects on others-- in short, become an Open learner about self as well as about others. Apply problem-solving training and skills in the context Of work with others: colleagues, faculty, senior administrators, students, and support staff. 41 5. Establish a human support system for self and for faculty and staff; that is, to be able to give and receive help apprOpriately (pp. 1-13). In summary, current research on department chair- persons' qualifications and selection procedure takes three directions. The first focuses on the kind of qualifications that should be required of the department chairperson. Typical Of the findings in this area are those of Doyle (1953). His survey of 33 private liberal arts colleges reveals that the selection of a departmental chairman is based on three principle criteria: (1) previous teaching experience, (2) outstanding teaching ability, and (3) admin- istrative talent (p. 29). The second research direction looks at the effect qualifications associated with the department chairpersons have on their roles. In asking "How did the selection process for division chairmen affect their role?," Vernon (1979) wonders: - Might the choice Of selection process determine what tasks were believed to be appropriate for the chairman? - Might the selection process affect their ability to be effective at certain traditional tasks? - Might faculty and administrative differences as to the best selection process reflect the views of each group as to which selection process would insure attitude and behaviors that would advance their own goals and interests? (p. 3) ‘ . I .r ' ,. , / . ‘ I f . (.7 p - ‘ I! , I I I 624 . I-{ . ~ \, x - 7 Wm M . --’ x . __,_. 42 +.The third direction in research tries to identify certain skills which the department chairperson should have or should develOp. In this regard, Buhl, Jeffries, Lindquist and Malicky (1980) believe department chairpersons should develOp their skills to be able to fulfill their roles. When the Ohio Board of Regents adOpted the Projects for Educational DevelOpment (PED), they stated their project rationale as follows: . . . The Chairperson's job becomes more complex and difficult each year. Student pOpulations decline and change, enrollment-driven budgets dwindle, account- ability pressures mount, new curricula demand review, collective bargaining impinges and confuses, personal roles as administrator and as faculty colleague con- flict more sharply, affirmative action rules complicate, and time drowns under the deluge Of paper. . . PED' s program was organized as a first step in filling that void in Ohio and particularly for institutions in the northeast region of the state. It was a pilot project designed to demonstrate the feasibility and utility of Offering department chairpersons training on a systematic basis. (p. 2) The Department Chairperson's Major Responsibilities Today, the academic department Chairperson's position is increasingly complex: Chairpersons' skills and method of selection have a deep influence on the role they play. The demands from inside and outside the department make management of the department very stressful. In the following subsection, the specific tasks and responsibilities of the department chairperson will be addressed. 43 Doyle (1953), in his study of thirty-three colleges, summarizes the general duties of the departmental chair- person as follows: . . . teaching functions, supervision of teaching in the department, administrative duties embracing preparation of the departmental budget, responsibility for the statement of departmental aims and offerings, prOper maintenance of a department library, main- tenance of personnel records, both faculty and student, and miscellaneous duties such as personal research and representation of the institution and departmental meetings of learned societies and educational groups . . . student guidance either as major or general advisers. (pp. 116-117) Roach (1976), in his article, "The Academic Depart- ment Chairperson: Functions and Responsibilities," discusses the responsibilities of the department chairperson: He or she must see the members are fully and completely considered at times Of promotion, consideration for tenure, sabbaticals, transfers, etc. He must represent the needs of the department for personnel, equipment, funds, and facilities, and these needs must be well represented, particularly to the dean and to the administration. He must represent the department at numerous academic and community functions. The chair- person must at all times represent the school administration. (p. 18) ¥In addition, the chairperson must represent certain student interests, especially if there is no functioning faculty- student advisement program. i. As a problem solver, the chairperson enhances his/her effectiveness "by good planning, by communicating and coordinating, by serving individual and department interest while keeping department and school goals clearly in 44 focus" (p. 19). In summary, the necessary skills the #7 chairperson must develOp are: (l) planning; (2) communicating, representing, negotiating, coordinating, and facilitating functions; (3) problem solving; (4) organizing and administering. The department Chairperson's responsibilities encom- pass everything that he does and everything that he should have done to carry out the department's activities in helping the school to achieve its Objectives. (p. 15) O'Grady (1973) attempts to ascertain the role exercised by the departmental chairperson and to compare the roles of the chairperson in selected small and large two- year colleges. Regarding the general functions of the chairperson, he finds certain differences correlated to institution size. While half of the large college chairpersons report they are "responsible for the assignment of Office and/or desk space," none Of the small college chairpersons have this responsibility. Similarly, 75 percent of the chairpersons at large colleges must maintain course outlines, while none Of the chairpersons at small colleges do. The majority of the chairpersons from large colleges maintain test files, and more than 75 percent Of them are responsible for "non-academic personnel administration." This last task was identified by less than 75 percent of the chair- persons from small colleges. From the responses to this survey, it is clear that chairpersons from small colleges hold less frequent 45 departmental meetings and individual faculty conferences. While chairpersons from large colleges are more Often responsible for "determination of departmental Objectives, regulations, course descriptions in the college catalog, and content of departmental publications and brochures,"_ chairpersons from both large and small colleges report they have: . . . responsibility for maintaining personnel records 4' on faculty and clerical staff, class lists, sponsoring departmental student groups, reporting student grades, and maintenance of grade books. (pp. 270-271) In the most recent research on the tasks and responsibilities of the department chairperson, Norton (1980) studied 53 colleges of education, 245 chairpersons, and 31 college of education deans. Seven primary task areas of the department chairperson were investigated: 1. Internal administration of the department 2. Budgetary planning, develOpment, and control 3. Personnel administration 4. Communication--internal, external, and community relations 5. Curriculum and instruction 6. Student personnel affairs 7. Personal/professional develOpment tasks Using an interview covering 176 items, Norton finds a limited number of differences between the perceptions of participating chairpersons and deans concerning the ideal 46 administrative responsibilities of department chairpersons. In addition, few differences are noted between deans of education and chairpersons concerning the importance Of the related tasks/responsibilities Of the department Chairperson's role (PP. 1-21). j In summary, research identifies three general areas of department chairperson responsibility: academic respon- sibilities, administrative responsibilities, and leadership responsibilities. The SCOpe of these responsibilities expands and shrinks from one institution to another. Requirements for Job Satisfaction Most administrators want to gain fulfillment of several needs other than financial needs. This subsection will examine many studies which address the major require- ments for personal satisfaction. Schaffer (1953) investigates human needs and their satisfaction. His study attempts to develOp a theoretical conceptualization Of job satisfaction which would have functional utility: Overall satisfaction will vary directly with the extent to which those needs of an individual which can be satisfied in a job are actually satisfied; the stronger the need, the more closely will job satisfaction depend on its fulfillment. (p. 3) Schaffer identifies twelve needs: recognition and approba- tion, affection and interpersonal relationships, mastery and 47 achievement, dominance, social welfare, self-eXpression, socioeconomic status, dependence, creativity and challenge, economic security, and independence (pp. 4-5). The strongest needs, as reported by self-ratings, were those for creativity and challenge, mastery and achievement, and social welfare (helping others); the weakest were those for independence, socioeconomic status, and dependence. (p. 19) Herzberg (1966) summarizes a study entitled "The Motivation to Work," done by Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959). This study was designed to test the concept that an individual has two sets of needs: a need as an animal to avoid pain, and a need as a human to grow psychologically. In interviews of 200 engineers and accountants who represent a cross-section of Pittsburgh industry, the researchers asked about events at work which either had resulted in a marked improvement in their job satisfaction or had led to a marked reduction in job satisfaction: . . . Five factors stand out as strong determiners of job satisfaction--achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement--the last three being of greater importance for lasting change of attitudes. These five factors appeared very infrequently when the respondents described events that paralleled job dissatisfaction feelings. (pp. 324-325) In their study, "Determinants Of Job Satisfaction Among College Administrators," Solmon and Tierney (1977) investigate the relationship between certain aspects of job satisfaction and organizational role congruence for selected 48 college administrators. They find positive correlations with job satisfaction for most of these nineteen measures: Salary, fringe benefits, personal status, institutional status, autonomy, variety, power, influence, congenial relationships, competency, Opportunities, visibility, challenge, responsibility, student relations, job security, scholarly pursuits, family time and leisure time. (p. 428) An individual who is satisfied with his/her job is more apt to report satisfaction with many aspects Of the job. Reporting that college administrators "are very satisfied with most aspects of their jobs" (p. 412), the author concludes that "greater harmony between individual desires and institutional reward structures will lead to more job satisfaction" (p. 429). McLaughlin et a1. (1973) surveyed forty-three department heads regarding their goals, job requirements, and job satisfaction. The major aspects investigated for job satisfaction were recognition for performance, degree of autonomy, informal peer acceptance, continued self- development, possibilities for achievement, and overall job satisfaction. They find that while chairpersons are satisfied with most major aspects of their jobs, they are not satisfied with their potential for further self- development (pp. l-12). Also, they state that: One Of the more frequently proposed changes was to increase a department head's autonomy. These ideas doubtless reflect the primary interest in guiding programs and in making long-range plans and would probably increase job satisfaction. (p. 10) 49 Washington (1975), in his study Of the relationship between teaching faculty's perception of their college department Chairperson's leadership style and faculty feelings of job satisfaction, concludes: The degree of job satisfaction is highest in college academic departments when faculty perceives that its Chairperson's leadership style is high in initiating structure and high in consideration. (dissertation abstract, p. 3464-A) Ansoh (1980) finds that chairpersons value the quality of work, "psychic compensation," and intrinsic rewards of their jobs more than they value financial compensation (p. 192). In summary, Schaffer (1953), Herzberg (1966), Solmon et a1. (1977), McLaughlin et a1. (1973), Washington (1975), and Ansoh (1980) stress psychological aspects of job satisfaction. In general, they agree on the following requirements of chairpersons for job satisfaction: having autonomy, having more prestige, having flexibility in scheduling Of office hours, having Opportunities for advance- ment, getting reimbursement, facing challenging activities, getting personal recognition, gaining a sense of achieve- ment, and achieving personal growth and develOpment. This researcher will investigate the perceptions held by department chairpersons in Saudi Arabian universities to find out to what extent these aspects are also important. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction This research attempts to identify department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of what is practiced and of what should be practiced regarding require- ments and processes of selection, major responsibilities, and requirements for job satisfaction Of the department chairperson at Saudi Arabian universities. This chapter describes the methodology used in this inquiry, including the population, instrumentation, data collection, hypotheses, and data analysis. POpulation and Sample This research was designed to investigate Saudi Arabian university department Chairpersons' perceptions. Three major universities out of six were selected for the following reasons. Each university is located in a different region of Saudi Arabia: Riyadh University is in the central province, King Abdulaziz University is in the western pro- vince, and the University of Petroleum and Minerals is in the eastern province. These institutions are all 50 51 characterized by a diversity of majors and by their adoption of the western educational system. All department chair- persons at the three universities were asked to participate in this study. The target population consists Of seventy- twO chairpersons at King Abdulaziz University, sixty-four at Riyadh University and sixteen at the University of Petroleum and Minerals. Instrumentation A questionnaire was chosen as the instrument through which to measure and collect data about Saudi Arabian university department chairpersons (see Appendix B). The questionnaire is composed Of four sections. Section I. This part consists Of items that deal with demographic data concerning the respondents' university, academic rank, the time spent in the department, time spent in the position, and nationality (Saudi or non-Saudi). Section II. The twenty-five items in this part were designed to examine the requirements and processes Of selection for department chairpersons. Section III. Here, twenty-six items seek information about the major responsibilities of department chairpersons. Section IV. This part is composed of fifteen items designed to investigate the requirements for job satisfac- tion for department chairpersons. 52 The items in parts II, III, and IV are derived from Aguon (1977) with some modification and with the omission of some items which were not necessary for this study. The questionnaire was reviewed by Dr. Marylee Davis, dissertation and academic advisor, by other members of the researcher's doctoral committee, and by personnel of the Research Consul- tant Office (RCO) at the College Of Education, Michigan State University. After the Guidance Committee approved the proposal, a c0py of the proposal with a brief summary was submitted by the researcher to the University Committee on Research Invol- ving Human Subjects for approval. A letter of approval was obtained (see Appendix B). Based on a letter sent by the academic advisor to King Abdulaziz University (through the Saudi Arabian Educational Mission in Houston, Texas) to obtain permission for the re- searcher tO go back to Saudi Arabia to collect data, King Abdul- aziz University granted the researcher time from December 15th to March 15th to perform his research (see Appendix B). Data Collection After arriving in Saudi Arabia, the researcher met with the President of King Abdulaziz University, who pro- vided him with letters to the presidents of Riyadh University and the University of Petroleum and Minerals requesting their assistance to administer the questions to their 53 faculties and gather the necessary data. No problems were experienced in meeting any department chairperson. But there were problems found in collecting data which caused the researcher to visit some of the respondents more than four times. To assure the anonymity of respondents, and to assure effective delivery and collection, the exchange of questionnaires was done in person with each department chairperson. However, in the cover letter of the question- naire the respondents were told there was no need for their names or for the names Of their departments because the research was aimed at Obtaining group results. Thus, the researcher hOped to reassure the respondents of privacy so they would be free in their answers. From the 15th of December, 1980, to the 20th of February, 1981, questionnaires were distributed and collected at all three universities. A total of 152 questionnaires were distributed and 129 were collected. Of these, four questionnaires were discarded because of incomplete responses. The remaining 125 completed questionnaires were used in this study. The percentages of questionnaire returns were as follows: from King Abdulaziz University--86% (sixty-two out of seventy-two); from Riyadh University--77% (forty-nine out of sixty-four); from the University of Petroleum and Minerals-- 88% (fourteen out of sixteen). 54 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of significance. Hypothesis 1 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of requirements for selection of department chairperson as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 2 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of the requirements for selection of depart- ment chairperson should be. Hypothesis 3 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance Of the selection process for department chairperson as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 4 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of the selection process for department chairperson should be. Hypothesis 5 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of their major responsibilities as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 6 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of their major responsibilities should be. 55 Hypothesis 7 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of their requirements for job satisfaction as practiced at the present time. Hypothesis 8 There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance Of their requirements for job satisfaction should be. Data Analysis All the department Chairpersons‘ responses to the questionnaire were punched onto cards, two cards for each respondent. A file including all the data for statistical analy- sis was created at the Computer Center, Michigan State University. As previously mentioned, the questionnaire is com- posed of four parts. The first part collects general informa- tion about the respondents. The second part is composed of twenty-five items regarding the requirements and processes of selection of department chairpersons. Items 1-9 are used for rating the importance of the requirements for the depart- ment chairperson; these items also test Hypotheses 1 and 2. Items 10-25 are used for rating the importance Of the pro- cesses Of selection; they also test Hypotheses 3 and 4. The third part has twenty-six items, and is used for rating the importance of the major responsibilities of the 56 department chairperson. These items test Hypotheses 5 and 6. The fourth part has fifteen items which are used for rating the importance of the requirement for job satisfaction of the department chairperson. These items test Hypotheses 7 and 8. The frequencies and percentages of the responses to questions 1-5 were used to describe the demographic char- acteristics of the sample (see Appendix B). The data analysis design for parts two, three and four is based on a Likert-type scale; the letters A-E are used to indicate these responses: A--an absolute must, B--high importance, C--medium importance, D--1ow importance, and E--nO importance. Values from l-5 are given to the letters A-E for the statistical analysis. The range Of the means for each item or for each group of items is displayed below: 1.00-1.49 An absolute must 1.50-2.49 High importance 2.50-3.49 Medium importance 3.50-4.49 Low importance 4.50-5.00 NO importance The degree of importance of each item or group is based on the mean or means within the above ranges. It seems reasonable to use the mean or means within the above ranges as a measure 57 of the importance of each item or group. All the items are placed in rank order based on the mean importance Of each. To identify any significant differences for each group among the three universities, a scale was devised to permit an F-test. The scale is a composite of the items in each section for the group: requirements, process of selection, major responsibilities, and requirements for job satisfaction. The F-test was applied to each group in order to determine whether or not to reject the null hypotheses. A 0.05 level of significance was chosen for these tests. Each item in parts two, three and four is answered in two ways: first, an "is" rating is used to indicate per- ceptions of what is practiced presently; than a "should be" rating is used to identify the respondents' expectations of what should be the practice. The described statistical procedures (frequency and univariate F-test) are used for the analysis of both the "is" and "should be" responses for each section. Subsequently, a summary and discussion is provided at the end Of the analysis. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purpose of this study was to investigate how department chairpersons perceive their positions regarding the requirements and process of selection, the major respon- sibilities, and the requirements for job satisfaction. This chapter reports the findings Of the study in four sections. The first section deals with demographic data gathered about the respondents: their universities and academic ranks, the time spent in their departments and in their positions, and the number of Saudis or non-Saudis. The second section looks into the requirements and the processes of selection Of department chairpersons. Two sets Of ratings are presented of the perceived importance of the requirements and processes of selection: those which exist at present and those which respondents believe should exist. Results are presented of tests Of the following four hypotheses: (1) There are no differences among the three universities in department chair- persons' perceptions of the importance Of requirements for selection Of department chairperson as practiced at the present time; (2) There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what 58 59 the importance Of the requirements for selection Of department chairperson should be; (3) There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of the selection process for department chair- person as practiced at the present time; and (4) There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of the selec- tion process for department chairperson should be. The third section addresses the ratings of the major responsibilities Of the department chairpersons. Results are presented of the testing of the fifth and sixth hypotheses: (5) There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance Of their major responsibilities as practiced at the present time; and (6) There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of their major responsibilities should be. The fourth section presents the ratings of the impor- tance of the requirements for job satisfaction of department chairpersons. Results of testing the seventh and eighth hypotheses are also presented: (7) There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of their requirements for job satisfaction as practiced at the present time; and (8) There are no differences among the three universities in department 60 Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance Of their requirements for job satisfaction should be. Demographic Data There were 125 department chairpersons who responded to the questionnaire from King Abdulaziz University (KAU), the University of Petroleum and Minerals (UPM), and Riyadh University (RU). Table 3.1 represents the distribution of subjects among the institutions. TABLE 3.1 DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO THEIR UNIVERSITIES University N % King Abdulaziz University 62 49.6 Riyadh University 49 39.2 University of Petroleum and Minerals 14 11.2 Total 125 100.0 The subjects represent the academic ranks shown in Table 3.2. As can be seen in Table 3.3, all the subjects had been in their respective departments for between less than one year and seventeen years. The subjects had served as chairpersons between less than one year and ten years (see Table 3.4). 61 TABLE 3.2 THE ACADEMIC RANK OF THE RESPONDENTS Total Academic Rank KAU RU UPM N % Professor 19 13 -- 32 25.6 Associate Professor 18 16 3 37 29.6 Assistant Professor 23 20 ll 54 43.2 Lecturer 2 -- -- 2 1.6 Total 62 49 14 125 100.0 TABLE 3.3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO TIME IN THEIR DEPARTMENTS Years NO. % Less than 1-2 42 33.6 3-5 60 48.0 6-8 14 11.2 9 and more 8 6.4 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 62 TABLE 3.4 DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS ACCORDING TO TIME IN THE POSITION OF CHAIRPERSON Years NO. % Less than 1-2 91 72.8 3-6 30 24.0 7 and more 3 2.4 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 The subjects who responded to the questionnaire can be divided into two groups: Saudi and non-Saudi (see Table 3.5). TABLE 3.5 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BETWEEN SAUDI AND NON-SAUDI NATIONALITIES Total Nationality KAU RU UPM N % Saudi 23 26 ll 60 48.0 Non-Saudi 39 23 3 65 52.0 Total 125 100.0 63 In summary, of the respondents used in this study of three universities in Saudi Arabia, the largest group held the rank of assistant professor. The span of time spent by the subjects in their departments ranges from less than one year to seventeen years, but the largest number have been in their departments for four years. As chairpersons, the sub- jects have held their positions for between less than one year and ten years; however, the majority have served as chairpersons for two years. The non-Saudi subjects make up 52 percent of the group, while the remaining subjects are Saudis. Requirements and Selection Process Twenty-five items were used to compare the perceptions of the department chairpersons at KAU, UPM and RU regarding the requirements and process of selection for department chairpersons. The items distinguish between perceptions Of what exists and what should exist. The term "is" is used to indicate perceptions of what is practiced presently. The term "should be" is used to identify expectations of what the requirements and the process of selection for the depart- ment chairperson should be. The descriptive frequency and univariate F-test were used to analyze the responses of the KAU, UPM and RU respon- dents regarding their responses to "is." However, the 64 twenty-five items are divided as follows: Items 1-9 are used to compare the perceptions of the department chairpersons regarding the requirements for the position; items 10-25 are used to compare perceptions of the process of selection for the position of the department chairperson. Hypothesis 1 The first nine items are used to test Hypothesis 1. There are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of the importance of requirements for selection of department chairperson as practiced at the present time. Table 4.1 shows the nine “requirement" items, rank order, means and standard deviations. Based upon the means, the KAU, RU, and UPM subjects' responses indicate the following ranking of the nine items ("is"): 1. Has earned Ph.D. 2. Communicates effectively with colleagues. 3. Participates in department/college/university professional activities. 4. Has administrative talent. 5. Shows strong interest in the position. 6. Demonstrates outstanding teaching ability. 7. Has strong research background. 8. Has published book(s) and/or article(s). 9. Has had formal administrative training. 65 TABLE 4.1 RANK ORDER OF THE NINE DESCRIPTIVE ITEMS BY "IS" REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS REGARDING Questionnaire Items Mean S.D. 1. Shows strong interest in the position. 2.426 1.266 2. Has administrative talent. 2.371 1.193 3. Has had formal administrative training. 3.377 1.387 4. Demonstrates outstanding teach- ing ability. 2.639 1.355 5. Has strong research background. 2.790 1.410 6. Has earned Ph.D. 1.323 .822 7. Has published book(s) and/or article(s). 2.863 1.558 8. Participates in department/ ' college/university professional activities. 2.138 1.183 9. Communicates effectively with colleagues. 2.025 1.107 All three university groups absolute must. They regarded items importance. Items 6, 7, and 8 were importance. Item 9 was perceived as of low importance. rated item 1 as an viewed as of medium 4, and 5 as of high Table 4.2 presents the results for each university, showing the rank order and means for perceptions of the present importance of the nine items about requirements of department chairpersons. 66 omN.N m Nvo.N N NGN.H N .mmsmmmHHoo :HHz NHm>Huomumm mmHmoHcsaeoo .m NNG.N a 84H.N a eHo.N m .mmHuH>Huom Hmconmmmoum suHmum>Hes \mmmHHOO\u:ofiuummmo CH movmmflowuumm .m NNm.m m mam.N a omm.N N .HmvaoHuum uo\ccm Hmcxoon omanHnsa mam .N NN¢.H H mvN.H H Hem.H H .o.cm smegma mam .e mms.m a NNN.N N mav.N e .mcsoumeomn soumwmmn mcouum mam .m «HN.N m NHm.N m Nom.N m .NHHHHnm oeHnommH mchcmumHso mmumuumcoEmc .4 who.v m nwm.m m mm~.m m .mcflcflmuu m>flumuumHCHEom Hmsuom mom .m emN.N m mma.N m eNN.N a .uemHmu m>HHmuumHeHEcm mam .N HNN.N N Nmo.N m omN.N m .coHHHmoa we» :H ummumucH mcouum msonm .H can: umouo :mmz Hmouo com: Hmouo mEmuH wnflmccofiummso Heme Heme Heme 2m: om sax mazmzmmeomm m.ZOmmMQMH¢mU m0 mUZ¢BmOmEH Bzmmmmm UZHdewmm WSMBH OB mmHBHmmm>HZD mammfi m0 mZOmmmmdemU W39 20mm mmmzommmm m0 de2 92¢ memO MzHvommmm wouMOHcsEEOO .m mmn.H mvm.H 5mm.H m .mmflufl>fluom Hmcoflmmmmouo >uamum>fics \mmmHHOO\ucmEuHmmwo ca mwquHOHDHmm .m mov.m mem.~ mmm.m h .HmvaOHuHm HO\ocm Hmvxoon Omnmflanso mom .5 Hhm.H Hmm.H mmm.H m .o.nm pocumo mom .m mvm.m Hmo.m mHo.m m .Ocsoumxomn goumomwu mcouum mom .m vab.~ bmm.m moo.m o .muHHwnm moanooou mcflpcmumuso mmumuumGOEmo .¢ who.m vmm.m mmn.m m .mcwcflmuu O>Humuumwcflaom HmEuOm mom .m mem.H Ham.H sam.H a .ucmHmu m>HumuuchHecm mm: .N emH.N Nmm.H NNN.N m .coHuHmoa was cH ummHchH mcouum msonm .H cmmz. com: com: HOOHO mEOUH ouflmccoflumwzo xcmm Ema DHZD mmmmfi m0 mzommmmmHfimU mmB 20mm mmmzommmm m0 Z OHEmomom one .NH 3N6 N NNN.N m 81:” 3 £88338 0:» mucHommm ammo OOOHHOO one .OH HEN; NH mNoH N OHNH H .comumafimno may muomHm huHsomm ucmEuHmmmo one .mH Nmm.v mH Nmm.v OH mmm.q OH .mumoHocmo on» monoccm mm>HumucwmmHmmu accosum .vH Hum.v HH. mmm.H m oom.m m .oumOHocmo on» mmmnooco wuHsomm ucwEuHmmmp on» mo quHonmE é .MH HNm.m m mmm.v «H mmo.m m .mumoHocmo mnu momHOch mouuHEEoo monISUHmHm>Hcs d .NH mmm.m w nmb.m HH mmm.m MH .oumoHocmo may monoEEoomu muoumuuchHEOm mo mmuuHEEoo mmmHHoo a .HH mmh.w vH mmH.m m ahm.m m .mumoHocmo mnu mocmEEoomu mwuuHEEoo huHsomm unmeunmmmo d .0H cows HOOHO coo: HOOHO new: Hoono mam”; wuHmccoHummso xcmm xcmm xcmm 2mm om Dmx ZOHBUQHmm m0 mmmoomm m.ZOmmmmmHHZD mmmmfi m0 mZOmmWQMHOEou on coo oouooHom GOmuom one .mm m8; NH 23.». NH HSN NH .3303 unmfiumawc 93 3 ounce Eonm Oo>OEoH on coo couooHom acmuom one .vm 3H4 OH HNN.N OH 286 HH .cchHomammu on #0: ans oouooHom nOmHoQ one .mm Heo.~ H Hvo.m v Hm~.~ q .OoHCHommmoH on ewe pouooHom acmuom one .NN eno.m m moo.m m vvm.m m .OosoH>ou wHHmOHOOHHom mH oouooHom cemnom one .Hm mmn.~ v mmv.H H NmN.H m .Enop oanHmoo m HOm mo>uom tonooHom nonuom one .om mmv.m. m Nam.v mH mmm.v mH .Euou ouHchoocH no How mo>uom oouooHom GOmHom one .mH Na; 3 N0N.N m 39m m .8628 3 330mm ucmfiumame mGOEm nuouumm coHumuou oonHuomoum < .mH cmoz Hopuo :moz Hopuo coo: Hopno mEouH oHHmcnoHumono ncmm xcmm nnmm SAD Ddx QMDZHBZOUIIh.v mHmde 77 TABLE 4.8 DEGREES OF FREEDOM AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR RESPONSES FROM THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THREE UNIVERSITIES TO EIGHT ITEMS REGARDING THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS Questionnaire Items Df F P 10. A department faculty committee recommends the candidate. 2 15.171 .001* 13. A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate. 2 14.194 .001* 14. Student representatives endorse the candidate. 2 3.242 .043* 15. The department faculty elects the chairperson. 2 34.584 .001* 18. A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed. 2 3.242 .043* 20. The person selected serves for a definite term. 2 3.524 .033* 21. The person selected is period- ically reviewed. 2 3.680 .029* 25. The person selected can be removed from Office by the college dean. 2 6.317 .003* *Significant at 0.05 level. Item 15 was regarded by KAU and RU as Of high impor- tance, with means of 1.710 and 1.625, respectively. However, UPM regarded the same item as Of no importance, with a mean Of 4.786. KAU and RU considered item 18 as Of low importance, with means of 3.610 and 3.708, respectively, while the same 78 item was perceived by UPM as Of no importance, with a mean of 4.929. Item 20 was considered by UPM as an absolute must, with a mean Of 1.469. KAU saw this item as of high importance, with a mean Of 1.787, while UPM viewed the same item as of medium importance, with a mean of 2.769. Item 21 was perceived by KAU and RU as Of medium importance, with respective means of 3.344 and 3.063. But, UPM perceived this item as of high importance, with a mean of 2.077. KAU and RU saw item 25 as of low importance, with means of 3.564 and 4.191, respectively. But UPM considered item 25 as of medium importance, with a mean of 2.786. The analysis presented in Table 4.8 indicates that significant differences were measured for eight items out Of sixteen. The value Of the F-test on the total of the sixteen items is 3.2704, with a level of significance of .0413, which is significant at the 0.05 level of significance. Hence, Hypothesis 3 is rejected (see Appendix C). Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 states that there are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of the selection process for department chairperson should be. 79 The same sixteen items used for Hypothesis 3 are used for this "should be" hypothesis. The frequency and univariate F-test were used to analyze the responses of the KAU, RU, and UPM respondents regarding their responses to "should be" Of the process of selection for the department chairperson. Table 4.9 presents the rank order of the sixteen items as perceived by KAU, RU, and UPM based on the mean Of the importance Of each. The KAU, RU, and UPM responses to the sixteen items on the process of selection for the department chairperson are ranked as follows, based on Table 4.9: 1. The person selected serves for a definite term. 2. The department faculty elects the chairperson. 3. The person selected may be reappointed. 4. A department faculty committee recommends the candidate. 5. The person selected is periodically reviewed. 6. A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate. 7. A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed. 8. The person selected can be removed from Office by the department faculty. 9. The academic vice president endorses the candidate. 80 TABLE 4.9 RANK ORDER OF THE SIXTEEN ITEMS BY "SHOULD BE" THE PROCESS OF SELECTION FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS REGARDING Rank Questionnaire Items Order Mean S.D. 10. A department faculty committee recommends the candidate. 4 2.157 1.402 11. A college committee of adminis- trators recommends the candidate. 10 3.717 1.409 12. A university-wide committee endorses the candidate. 11 3.748 1.480 13. A majority Of the department faculty endorses the candidate. 6 2.279 1.555 14. Student representatives endorse the candidate. 15 4.276 1.154 15. The department faculty elects the chairperson. 2 1.785 1.349 16. The college dean appoints the chairperson. 12 3.780 1.435 17. The academic vice president endorses the candidate. 9 3.581 1.572 18. A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed. 7 3.220 1.553 19. The person selected serves for an indefinite term. 16 4.390 1.192 20. The person selected serves for a definite term. 1 1.683 1.140 21. The person selected is period- ically reviewed. 5 2.254 1.417 22. The person selected may be reappointed. 3 2.131 1.213 81 TABLE 4.9--CONTINUED Rank Questionnaire Items Order Mean S.D. 23. The person selected may not be reappointed. 13 3.854 1.475 24. The person selected can be re- moved from office by the department faculty. 8 3.225 1.569 25. The person selected can be re- moved from office by the college dean. 14 3.892 1.460 10. A college committee of administrators recommends the candidate. 11. A university-wide committee endorses the candidate. 12. The college dean appoints the chairperson. 13.. The person selected may not be reappointed. 14. The person selected can be removed from office by the college dean. 15. Student representatives endorse the candidate. 16. The person selected serves for an indefinite term. All the respondents from the three universities rated items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as of high importance. They regarded items 7 and 8 as of medium importance. Items 9, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were perceived as of low importance. Table 4.10 looks at the three universities individually. 82 ovm.m m mmm.m m mwh.m NH .muwowcomo may momnopco ucooflmonm mofl> anmcmom one .ha smm.m «H omm.m NH mum.m Ha .comumaufimso mnu mucflommm ammo mmmHHoo one .ma 5mm.m m ~H6.H m «mm.a H .cOmumauHmno on» muowam muasomm ucmEuumowp one .mH ¢H>.v ma mv~.¢ ea oom.v ma .mHMpflocmo may mmHOUcm mm>wumucmmmummu pamcnum .va oom.~ v mnm.a m omm.~ m .oumpflcsmo may mmmuopcm muaoomm ucmsuummmp on» «0 huwuonmE fl .MH mmn.m NH ooo.¢ ma mvm.m m .mumpwpcmo on» momm0©cm mmuuflfifioo mpfl3lauwmuw>wcs m .NH hmm.m n mmm.m OH vmm.m ma .oumpwocmo may mpcmEEoomH muoumuumHCHEom mo mmuuHEEoo mmmHHoo < .HH Hum.~ m mvo.m v oma.m m .mumowocmo 0:» mpcwEEoowu mouuflEEoo >pa50dm ucmsuummww d .oa :mmz umpuo :mmz umpuo cmwz “mono mam» H mnwmscowummoo xcmm xcmm xcmm 2m: 3m 34x 20mmWAMHHZD moo€mu on cmo omuomamm GOmHmm 0:9 .mm mmm.m a 89m N. ~36 m .3363 ucmsuummmc 93 an moflmo sod ©w>oamu on :mo pmuomawm acmumm was .em 39m 2 3mg” 2 oom.m E .omufiommmmu on uo: hmE cwuomamm GOmHmm was .mw Sm; m S: m mo~.~ s .cmufioammmu mg was 63033 :8qu was .mm mmm.a .H ova.m o mmm.m m .nm3mw>mu maamowoofluwm ma omuomawm comnmm was .Hm mma.H m Hmm.H H om>.H m .Enmu muflcwmwp m How mm>umm Umuowamm COmumm one .om ooo.v ma mmv.¢ ma omv.v ma .Eumu muwcflmmpcfl am How mm>umm pmuomawm cemuwm one .ma SEA 2 S: m m2; s 663038 3 530mm ucwfiumamc macaw :Houumm soflumuou omnwnommum fl .mH :mmz Hwouo cams umouo cmmz Hoouo mEmuH wHHMGGOAummso xcmm xcmm xcmm 2m: de DMDZHBZOUIIOH.¢ mgmflfi 84 Significant differences were found for three items of the sixteen: Items 13, 14, and 21. Table 4.11 shows the degrees of freedom and the levels of significance for each of these items. Item 13 was perceived by KAU and UPM as of medium importance, with means of 2.550 and 2.500, respectively, while RU considered this item as of high importance, with a mean of 1.875. ‘ KAU and RU viewed item 15 as of high importance, with means of 1.552 and 1.612, respectively. UPM perceived the same item as of medium importance, with a mean of 3.357. Item 21 was considered by RU as of high importance, with a mean of 2.146. UPM perceived item 21 as an absolute must, with a mean of 1.386. Item 21 was viewed by KAU as of medium importance, with a mean of 2.525. Table 4.11 indicates that significant differences were measured for three items out of sixteen. All sixteen items have been treated by the F-test to reject or accept the hypothesis. The F value for the total items is .2738, with a level of significance equal to .7609, which is highly insignificant. Hence, Hypothesis 4 cannot be rejected (see Appendix C). 85 TABLE 4.11 DEGREES OF FREEDOM AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR RESPONSES FROM THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THREE UNIVERSITIES TO THREE ITEMS REGARDING WHAT THE PROCESS OF SELECTION OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS SHOULD BE Questionnaire Items Df F P 13. A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate. 2 3.109 .049* 15. The department faculty elects the chairperson. 2 13.079 .001* 21. The person selected is period- ically reviewed. 2 3.851 .024* *Significant at 0.05 level. Major Responsibilities of the Department Chairperson In this section, twenty-six items were used to measure and rate the importance of various responsibilities to depart- ment chairpersons at present. The same twenty-six items were used to measure and rate what the department chairpersons believe these responsibilities should be. Hypotheses 5 and 6 will be treated in this section. Descriptive frequency and univariate F-test are used to analyze the responses of KAU, RU, and UPM. Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5 states that there are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' per- ceptions of the importance of their major responsibilities as practiced at the present time. 86 Table 5.1 presents the responses of the department chairpersons from the three universities about their present major reSponsibilities. Each item is rated based on the degree of importance perceived by the whole pOpulation. The table also presents the rank order, mean, and standard deviation of each item. The target population at KAU, RU, and UPM perceived their major responsibilities at present in the following rank order based on the mean of each item: 1. 2. 10. 11. Teaching. Representing the department on college/university committees. Submitting department annual report. Assigning teaching schedules and other duties to faculty. Developing and reviewing department courses with faculty. Assigning work to department staff (not faculty). Maintaining and updating department information in university catalogue. DevelOping new and reviewing current program requirements. Submitting periodic reports required by the university. Counseling and advising students. Assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment. 87 TABLE 5.1 RANK ORDER, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE TWENTY-SIX ITEMS OF MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON AT PRESENT Rank Questionnaire Items Order Mean S.D. 1. Counseling and advising students. 10 2.136 1.145 2. Submitting department annual report. 3 1.672 1.162 3. Preparing department budget. 21 2.650 1.640 4. Handling faculty grievances. 14 2.237 1.305 5. DevelOping and reviewing depart- ment courses with faculty. 5 1.696 1.094 6. Maintaining and updating depart- ment information in university catalogue. 7 2.008 1.266 7. Teaching. 1 1.544 .746 8. Assigning teaching schedules and other duties to faculty. 4 1.677 1.048 9. Assigning work to department staff (not faculty). 6 1.816 1.167 10. Representing the department on college/university committees. 2 1.576 .918 11. Handling student grievances. 13 2.230 1.184 12. Representing the department to non-university committee groups. 22 2.878 1.382 13. Maintaining faculty personnel records. 24 2.959 1.573 14. Recruiting, selecting, evalua- ting, terminating, and rewarding faculty. 25 3.260 1.465 88 TABLE 5.l--CONTINUED Rank Questionnaire Items Order Mean S.D. 15. Recruiting, selecting, evalua- ting, terminating, and rewarding department staff (not faculty). 23 2.894 1.519 16. Maintaining records of student grades and programs. 20 2.624 1.501 17. Facilitating professional develOpment of faculty. 18 2.545 1.335 18. Selecting and reviewing learning materials. 16 2.500 1.253 19. Promoting c00peration with other departments, colleges, and university units. 12 2.205 1.259 20. Informing students on academic policies and Opportunities. 19 2.618 1.328 21. Facilitating faculty research and publication. 15 2.360 1.322 22. DevelOping new and reviewing current program requirements. 8 2.065 1.132 23. Assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment. 11 2.187 1.230 24. Providing information for com- municating with professional academic groups. 17 2.504 1.318 25. Controlling financial expenditures. 26 3.715 1.388 26. Submitting periodic reports required by the university. 9 2.073 1.263 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 89 Promoting c00peration with other departments, colleges, and university units. Handling student grievances. Handling faculty grievances. Facilitating faculty research and publication. Selecting and reviewing learning materials. Providing information for communicating with professional academic groups. Facilitating professional develOpment of faculty. Informing students on academic policies and Opportunities. Maintaining records of student grades and programs. Preparing department budget. Representing the department to non-university committee groups. Recruiting, selecting, evaluating, terminating, and rewarding department staff (not faculty). Maintaining faculty personnel records. Recruiting, selecting, evaluating, terminating, and rewarding faculty. Controlling financial expenditures. Items 1-15 were viewed as of high importance by the three universities. They considered items 16-25 as of medium importance. Item 26 was viewed as of low importance. 90 The rank order and means for each university on items about major responsibilities are presented in Table 5.2. As shown in Table 5.2, the responses from the three universities reveal significant differences for six items out of the twenty-six (see Table 5.3). The department chairpersons of KAU viewed preparing department budget (item 3) as of high importance, with a mean of 2.258. Chairpersons at RU consider this item as of medium importance, with a mean of 2.917, and chairpersons at UPM saw item 3 as of no importance, with a mean of 3.538. Item 6 was considered by UPM chairpersons as an absolute must, with a mean of 1.214. The same item was per- ceived by KAU and RU as of high importance, with means of 2.037 and 2.204, respectively. Chairpersons of KAU saw teaching (item 7) as an absolute must, with a mean of 1.403. Chairpersons at RU and UPM viewed the same item as of high importance, with means of 1.571 and 2.071, respectively. While the chairpersons at KAU rated this item as first in importance among their responsi- bilities, chairpersons at RU rated teaching third and chair- persons at UPM considered it eleventh in rank. Item 10 (representing the department on school committees) was seen by KAU chairpersons as an absolute must, with a mean of 1.452. However, chairpersons at RU and UPM perceived this item as of high importance, with respective 91 HHN.N 6H Hmm.H N va.H N .mmmuuHssoo NHHmHm>Hcs_ \mmmaaoo co ucmfiuummmp on» mswucmmmummm .oa mvo.H o mmN.H H moa.H m .HsuHsomm Hons wmmum ucmEuummmU on xno3 quasmflmmm .m mN¢.H N NNN.H m mvm.H H .muHsomH 0» mmHuso Hmnuo 6cm mmaspmzom mswnommu mcwcoflmmd .m Hno.N .dH HNm.H m moq.H H .mcHnomma .N HHN.H H «ON.N 0H mmo.N m .msmonumo auHmHm>Hcs :H :oHumsu0mcH ucmEuummmp mcfiumpms cam mewsflmucflmz .m com.H v mmm.H m mqm.H m .NuHsomm nqu mmmusoo ucweuummmo mcw3mfl>mu can mcwaoam>mo .m HmN.N NH mov.N mH mmo.N OH .mmocm>mHHm NuHsomH mcHchmm .s mmm.m mN NHm.N NN mmN.N «H .ummnsn Hamsuumamu mcHumaoum .m mNm.H OH. NHH.H H. CNN.H m .unoamu Hmsccm unwsuummwo acHuuHsnsm .N NNH.N ON svm.N HH. mom.H N .mucmusum ochH>6m can mcHHmmcsoo .H cmmz Honcho cmmz umpuo cow: Hmpuo mEmuH muwmccoflummoo xcmm xcmm xamm 2m: am 54x mMHBHquHmZOmmmm mObmu can mswuomamm .mH vH~.~ ma mon.m ma mm¢.m ma .muasomm mo usmEQOHm>w© Hmcowmmmmoum mswumuflaflomm .nH mwm.a n van.m mH. vhn.m Hm .mamnmoum pom mopmum ucmoopm mo mpuoomu mcflcfimucflmz .mH HEN HN mmmN mN NHNN NN .3383 35 Hmmum ucmauummmo mconm3mH cam .mCHDMCHEku .mcwuwoam>m .mswpomawm .mcflufisnomm .mH NNNN «N ST». N omN.m N .5163 656833 28 638553 .mcfiumsflm>m .mcfluomamm .mcflufiouomm .VH mvo.~ mm. omo.m vm mwm.~ mm .mpuoomu Hmccomuwm >uasomm mcflcflmusfimz .ma NNNN N 35.0. ON HAHN «N .3:on 322560 3883:: loos ou ucwfiuummmo may mcfiuamwmumwm .NH qu.m mH mmm.m «H. mHH.N HH .mmocm>wfinm ucmosum mcflaocmm .HH :mmz. Hmnno com: Hmpuo cmmz Hopuo mEmuH mHHMCGOHummsO xcmm xcmm xcmm 2m: am 56% DMDZHBZOUI:N.m mamdfi 93 NNNN NH mHmH w SHN NH .HuHmuchs 93 E pmuwnqmu manommn oatDmem mcfluuwensm .om mm>.m mm. mwm.m om. oom.m om .mmusuflpcmmxm Hwflocmcwm mcHHHouucou .mm m¢H.N vH. mvv.~ 9H mmo.~ om .mmsoum owsmcmom HMGOHmmmmoum nuflz mcwuwowssfieoo How :oHumEHomcH msflofl>oum .vm quH m ommN mH SHN NH #55353 HEN. mmfluflaflomm mo OOGMCODCMME mowHSmm< .mm «Hn.H m va.N h mvo.~ m .mucmeHHsva Emumonm ucmuuso mcfizmw>mu paw 3m: msflmon>mo .mm «HRH N momN NH SAN NH .coHumoHHnsm cam noummmwu huHsomw mafiumuflHwomm .Hm mmmN NH SEN HN HsmN NH .mmHHHcBHommo Ham. mwfiowaom anocmom co mucwpsum mGHEHOMGH .om cmmz Hmpno cmmz Hmouo saw: .395 mEmuH wuflmccowummso xcmm xcmm xcmm Ema Dm DHcs \mmmHHoo so yamEyummmp may maflyammmymmm .OH omN.H NH .Hmm.H H Hmm.H HH .ANuHsomm Hone mmmym yamEyHmmmO oy xyos mcflamwmma .m smN.H H mmo.H m omS.H CH .Nstomm 0» mmHyao Hmayo paw mmHspmaom mafiaommy mawamflmma .m qu.N mN. mNN.H NH Nam.H m .ocHnomme .N mvo.H H mNm.H OH Nmm.H N .msmonymo NuHmum>Hcs cH :oHumsuoHaH yamEyHmmmO maflymwms cam mawaflmyaflmz .m HHN.H N qu.H H NNH.H H .Hstomm zst mmmusoo ycmfiyummmc maflzmfl>my can mnemon>mo .m NSN.H mH. mmN.H NH. mmN.H NH .mmocm>mHHm NuHsomH mcHHecmm .v mNmeH HN mNN.H 6H” mom.H m .ymmcsa yamsyummmo mcHumdmum .m oom.H m Nom.H N OHH.H m .yuoamu Hmscam ycmeuumame quuyHensm .N HNm.N mN Nmo.N NN mmN.H HH .mycwnsym mchH>om 6cm mcHmecaoo .H 2mm: HOUHO Gmmz HOGHO G002 HOGHO mEOUH OHHMCGOflymOSO xcmm Hcmm xcmm zms am DHH mZOmMNQMHHZD wm meMO MZ¢M QZ¢ mz¢m2 :mm DQDOmm= wm m.m figmdfi 101 oomH 0H NEH N HUSH v .32: 3885:: cam .mmmmHHoo .myamEyymamc Hmayo ayH3 aoHymHmmooo maHyOEoym .mH mmN.H mH ONo.N HN Nom.H ON .mHMHumyms mcHaHmmH mcH3mH>mH cam maHyomHmm .mH aN¢.H m mmN.H mH th.H mH .mstomm mo yamEmon>m© Hmaonmmmoum maHymyHHHomm .NH 28H «H HNNN 4N NHNN N 653603 Ham mmomum yamcsym mo mcyoomu maHaHmyaHmz .wH NEH NH mmmH m NNNH SH .3383 35 mmmym yamEyymmmO maHOHmsmu cam .mcHymaHE lymy .maHymon>m .maHyomHmm .maHstyomm .mH HHNH m ONoN ON mmoN HN .3303 633639.. 9:... 633632 IHmy .maHyMSHm>m .maHyomHmm .maHstuomm .vH OOH.N NN NNH.N MN vmm.N ON .mouoomu Hmaaomumm astomm maHaHmyaHmz .MH mwN.H OH Nmm.N mN OHv.N mN .mmsoym myHasEEoo myHmum>Hcs Iaoa oy yamEyHmmmO may maHyammmHmmm .NH mvm.H NH. mmN.H NH ONN.N NN .mmoam>mHHm yamnsym mcHHOamm .HH ammz umpuo cmmz .HmOHO cams .HmOHO mEmyH mHHmcaoHymmso aamm acmm xamm Ema Dm Ddx omozHazoouum.m mHmae 102 ONOH N ONNH HH NNOH 3 $3332: :3 ha OmHHDOmH myuommn OHOOHHmm maHyyHeasm .mN OONN ON NOON ON OmmN ON 63:33:38 H3833 3:83:00 .3 OONH ON mmNH NH HOOH NH .8588 3538: 8:08:38: :33 maHyMOHaoEEoo Hon aoHymEHOMGH maHOH>OHm .vN OONH OH NONH OH ONNH mH 35:3:va cam mmHyHHHomm mo moamamyaHmE maHusmm¢ .MN NmmH m NOOH m NNH.H N 8:55:33: 23:8: yamHHoo maHSmH>mH cam 3m: maflmon>mo .NN ONOH O HmmH m NmHH O .:oH::oHH::: can aoummmmn mstomm maHyOyHHHomm .HN OmHN ON mmNH OH OOOH OH $335333 :5 mmHOHHom OHEmOmom co myampsym maHEu0maH .ON ammz .HmOHo com: .HmOHO ammz HmOHO mEmyH mHHmaaoHymmso aamm xamm xamm 2:: a: pa: QMDZHBZOUIIm.m mamflfi 103 measured by the univariate F-test to reject or accept the hypothesis: F = .2568, with a level of significance = .7739, which is highly insignificant. Consequently, Hypothesis 6 cannot be rejected (see Appendix C). Requirements for Job Satisfaction To investigate requirements for job satisfaction, fifteen items rate for importance by the department chair— persons. Once again, the respondents were asked to distin- guish between what their requirements for job satisfaction are and what they should be. Hypotheses 7 and 8 are measured here, using the frequency and univariate F-test to analyze the responses Of KAU, RU, and UPM chairpersons. Hypothesis 7 This hypothesis states that there are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' per- ceptions of the importance of their requirements for job satisfaction as practiced at the present time. Table 6.1 presents the responses of the department chairpersons from the three universities regarding their existing requirements for job satisfaction. Each item is rated based on its degree of importance as perceived by all the respondents from the three universities. Using the data in Table 6.1, the following list shows the rank order of importance of the fifteen items used to 104 TABLE 6.1 RANK ORDER, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH OF THE FIFTEEN ITEMS RELATED TO PRESENT REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION Rank Questionnaire Items Order Mean S.D. 1. Getting an additional salary increment for administrative duties. 7 2.784 1.506 2. Reduction of teaching hours. 11 3.040 1.370 3. Having a full-time administra- tive assistant. 15 4.008 1.377 4. Having autonomy from the dean in managing the department. 9 2.848 1.350 5. Having more prestige than faculty. 14 3.333 1.316 6. Having flexibility in scheduling of office hours. 8 2.821 1.361 7. Having opportunities for advance- ment. 12 3.146 1.377 8. Getting reimbursement of travel expenses for conventions and conferences. 3 2.496 1.544 9. Facing challenging activities. 4 2.612 1.287 10. Returning to faculty status at conclusion of term of Office. 1 1.731 1.118 11. Getting personal recognition. 10 2.884 1.292 12. Gaining a sense of achievement. 2 2.320 1.115 13. Achieving personal growth and development. 5 2.667 1.286 14. Having clerical/secretarial support. 6 2.784 1.495 15. Having increased research Opportunities. 13 3.320 1.323 105 investigate requirements for job satisfaction as perceived by the three universities' chairpersons. 1. Returning to faculty status at conclusion of term of office. 2. Gaining a sense of achievement. 3. Getting reimbursement of travel expenses for conventions and conferences. 4. Facing challenging activities. 5. Achieving personal growth and development. 6. Having clerical/secretarial support. 7. Getting an additional salary increment for administrative duties. 8. Having flexibility in scheduling of office hours. 9. Having autonomy from the dean in managing the department. 10. Getting personal recognition. 11. Reduction of teaching hours. 12. Having Opportunities for advancement. 13. Having increased research Opportunities. 14. Having more prestige than faculty. 15. Having a full-time administrative assistant. All the chairpersons indicated that items 1, 2, and 3 have high importance. They rated items 4-14 as of medium importance, and item 15 as of low importance. 106 Table 6.2 identifies the ratings given by each university. It presents rank order and means by each univer- sity. Analysis of three of the fifteen items reveals signi- ficant differences when submitted to by the ANOVA test (see Table 6.3). KAU and RU department chairpersons consider item 2 (reduction of teaching hours) as of medium importance, with means of 3.306 and 3.082, respectively. However, UPM depart- ment chairpersons view the same item as of high importance, with a mean of 1.714. KAU rates this item as fourteenth among fifteen, RU considers it twelfth, and UPM places the same item third. Item 5 (having more prestige than faculty) was per- ceived by RU and UPM as of medium importance, with means of 3.020 and 2.769, respectively. KAU saw this item as of low importance, with a mean of 3.705. Item 14 (having clerical/secretarial support) is viewed by KAU and RU department chairpersons as of medium importance, with respective means of 3.177 and 2.653; but, UPM department chairpersons consider it as of high importance, with a mean of 1.500. While KAU ranks this item twelfth and RU views it as sixth, UPM considers it as first in importance. ANOVA measure of each item results in significant differences for items 2, 5, and 14 (see Table 6.3). But, when 107 mwm.H N mmm.H H NNm.H H .mOmeo mo Emmy mo conSHoaoo may ym maymym astomm oy mchnsymm .OH OONN O OONN N NOON m 63:33:: 33:38:: :33: .O Nmm.H v mON.N N mmm.N N .mmoamummcoo cam maoHyam>aoo HOH mmmammxm Hm>myy mo yamEmmHanHmn maHyymo .m NOON NH OOOH OH NHO.m HH 3:28:36: :3 $323830 6:33 .N NmO.N m mnm.N m mom.N m .myooa monm0 m0 maHHsOmaom OH myHHHameHm mcH>mm .O mON.N .fiH 0No.m HH mon.m OH .mstomm away moHymmHm mHOE maH>mm .m HNON O NOON OH ONO.N O 3:65:33 may 933:: GH ammp may Sony manoyom maH>mm .v ooo.v mH mmm.m mH mvo.v mH .yamymHmmm m>HymuymHaHEOm mEHyIHHsm m maH>mm .m vHN.H m Nmo.m NH Oom.m OH .mysoa mcHaommy mo coHyODOmm .N vHN.N OH NHO.N v mmm.N m .mmHyso m>HymHychHEOm you yamEmHoaH mHmHmm HmaoHyHOOm cm maHyymw .H :mmz .HmOHO ammz .HmHOHO ammz .HmOHo mEmyH mHHmcaoHymmso xamm xamm xamm SAD Dm DHZD mmmmfi m0 mZOmmmmMHde HEB 20mm mmmzommmm m0 m2€m£ 924 mmnmo M24m N.w mnmdfi 108 om~.m HH. bmm.m mH omm.m mH .mmHuHcsuuommo noummmmu ommmmuocH mcH>mm .mH oom.H H mmo.~ m HHH.m NH .uuommsm HmHumuwuomm\HmoHumHo mcH>mm .HH mmv.m N. «mm.~ m Hmb.~ v .ucmamon>mu cam suzoum Hmcomnmm mcH>mHso« .mH va.~ m mmv.~ m mmm.m N .u:me>m..Eom mo mmcmm m mchwmw .NH mmm.~ mH mmh.m m mqm.~ m .coHuHcmoowu Hm:0mumm mcHuumw .HH cam: wauo cmmz .Hmcuo cmwz Hmcno meuH wHHmccoHummso xcmm xcmm xcmm 2m: omx DMDZHEZOUIIN . m mamflB 109 TABLE 6.3 DEGREES OF FREEDOM AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR RESPONSES FROM THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THREE UNIVERSITIES TO THREE ITEMS FOR PRESENT JOB SATISFACTION Questionnaire Items Df F P 2. Reduction of teaching hours. 2 9.205 .001* 5. Having more prestige than faculty. 2 5.369 .006* 14. Having clerical/secretarial support. 2 8.472 .001* *Significant at 0.05 level. the total fifteen items are measured by the F-test, a value of F = 2.3042 with a level of significance = .1042 results, which is insignificant at the .05 level of significance. Hence, Hypothesis 7 cannot be rejected (see Appendix C). Hypothesis 8 This hypothesis states that there are no differences among the three universities in department Chairpersons' perceptions of what the importance of their requirements for job satisfaction should be. The same items are used to measure the perception of department chairpersons of what should be important for their job satisfaction as were used to measure perceptions of actual requirements for job satisfaction. Table 6.4 lists the fifteen items and presents rank order, mean, and standard deviation for each. 110 TABLE 6.4 RANK ORDER, MEAN, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF ITEMS MEASURING REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS Rank Questionnaire Items Order Mean S.D. 1. Getting an additional salary increment for administrative duties. 2 1.492 .879 2. Reduction of teaching hours. 8 1.776 1.007 3. Having a full-time administra- tive assistant. 11 1.880 1.229 4. Having autonomy from the dean in managing the department. 6 1.656 .862 5. Having more prestige than faculty. 15 3.073 1.444 6. Having flexibility in scheduling of office hours. 12 1.951 1.130 7. Having Opportunities for advance- ment. 9 1.829 1.107 8. Getting reimbursement of travel eXpenses for conventions and conferences. 4 1.573 .964 9. Facing challenging activities. 7 1.736 .938 10. Returning to faculty status at conclusion of term of office. 5 1.580 .934 11. Getting personal recognition. 14 2.231 1.296 12. Gaining a sense of achievement. 3 1.524 .656 13. Achieving personal growth and development. 13 1.959 1.202 14. Having clerical/secretarial support. 1 1.320 .703 15. Having increased research opportunities. 10 1.832 1.169 111 From the data disclosed in Table 6.4, the rank order of importance of the requirements for job satisfaction ("should be") of the three universities' chairpersons is as follows: 1. 2. 14. 15. items 1 Having clerical/secretarial support. Getting an additional salary increment for administrative duties. Gaining a sense of achievement. Getting reimbursement of travel expenses for conventions and conferences. Returning to faculty status at conclusion of term of office. Having autonomy from the dean in managing the department. Facing challenging activities. Reduction of teaching hours. Having Opportunities for advancement. Having increased research Opportunities. Having a full-time administrative assistant. Having flexibility in scheduling of office hours. Achieving personal growth and development. Getting personal recognition. Having more prestige than faculty. All the respondents from the three universities rate and 2 as absolute musts. They consider items 3-14 112 as of high importance. Item 15 is viewed as of medium importance. Table 6.5 compares how each university perceived these items. The fifteen items were measured by the ANOVA test to discover any significant differences; only one item, (2), out of the fifteen showed a significant difference. Item 2 (reduction of teaching hours) was perceived by KAU, RU and UPM as of high importance, with means of 2.000, 1.571, and 1.500, respectively. The result of the ANOVA test yielded a degree of freedom = 2, F = 3.388, with a probability = .037. But, the other fourteen items do not meet the same level of significance. The F-test was applied to the total of the items, resulting in F = .8834 with a level of significance = .4160, which is highly insignificant. Hence, Hypothesis 8 cannot be rejected. Summary Presentation of the data analysis was divided into four sections. The first deals with information about the respondents. The second section deals with the requirements and process of selection for the department chairpersons. Of the twenty-five items used, items 1-9 measure perceptions of the requirements department chairpersons perceive exist and those they believe should exist. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were 113 Hum.H O mOm.H v omm.H m .OOHmmo mo Emma mo :onsHocoo um msumum wuHoomm on mchuOumm .OH mOh.H m NHO.H O Hmm.H m .mmHuH>Huom OOHOCOHHmno mcHomm .m Hum.H m mmO.H O mom.H m .mwocwummcoo 0cm mcoHucm>coo How mmmcmmxw Hw>muu mo usmEmmHDaEHmu OOHuumu .m AOO.H OH OHO.H OH OMO.H O .uamswucm>om uoO mmHuHcsuuoOOo OOH>OO .O OOO.~ .NH OHO.H HH OHO.H HH .muson moHOOo mo OOHHowmnom OH auHHHonmHm mcH>mm .O mom.m mH mmh.m mH mnm.m mH .huHOomm can» mmHummum OHOE mcw>mm .m OOO.H m OOO.H O HOO.H O .ucmeuummmo may OOHOOOOE CH sump may Eoum Maocousm mcH>mm .v mmv.m mH mmm.H OH va.H O .ucmpmHmmm O>HumuuchHEOm OEHOIHHOM m OOH>mm .m oom.H v Hum.H m ooo.m NH .mnoos mcHnommu mo OOHHOOOOm .m mmm.H m mOO.H N mmm.H v .meuOO O>HumuuchHeom HOm ucOEwHocH aumHmm HOOOHHHOOO cm OCHuumw .H cam: HOOHO cmmz HOOHO cam: umpuo meuH muHmccoHummoo xcmm xcmm xcmm SmD Dm Dfix ZOmfiMQZHémU BZmEBm¢me Ema mOm mm DHDOmm ZOHBUdmmHBHZD muOO .OH OOO.H .H OOO.H .H HOO.H H .Huommzm HmHnmumuomm\HmoHano OOH>OO .OH OHO.H O OOO.H OH OHH.~ OH .ucmeaon>mO can cuzoum Hmcomnwm mcH>wH£o¢ .mH OOO.H H OOO.H O OOO.H O .H:82m>mHOom Oo mmamm m OOHOHOO .OH OOO.~ OH OHO.H OH OOO.O OH. .coHuHcmoomu Hmcomumm OOHHHOO .HH cmmz MOOHO cmwz HOOHO :mmz HOOHO mEmuH OHHmccoHummso xcmm xcmm xcmm ZOO OOO QNDZHBZOUlIm.m mam¢9 115 designed to investigate if there are significant differences among the three universities regarding the importance of requirements for the chairperson position. Hypothesis 1 was rejected, but Hypothesis 2 could not be rejected. Regarding perceptions of what is currently practiced, significant differences were found between university perceptions of item 5 (has strong research background) and item 7 (has published book(s) and/or article(s)). KAU chairpersons viewed item 5 as of high importance, RU chairpersons con- sidered it as of medium importance, and UPM saw this item as of low importance. The information presented in Section 1, Tables 3.2 and 3.5 indicates that KAU has more full professors in chairperson positions than RU and UPM, which have more lower-ranking professors in these positions. On the other hand, KAU has more non-Saudis in the chairperson positions than Saudis, while RU and UPM have more Saudis in chairperson positions than non-Saudis. One possible explanation emerges from the demographic data collected, which reveal that the lower-ranking and newer chairpersons regard research and publication as less important. On the other hand, the higher- ranking and more experienced chairpersons regard these areas as highly important. Section 1 also deals with items 10-25 on the question- naire which are used to measure perceptions of present practice and expected practice of selection procedures for 116 department chairpersons. Hypotheses 3 and 4 are used to measure significant differences among the three universities regarding what is and what should be. Hypothesis 3 was rejected. Significant differences were found among the three universities for perceptions of current selection pro- cedures described in item 10 (a department faculty committee recommends the candidate), item 13 (a majority of the depart- ment faculty endorses the candidate), and item 15 (the depart- ment faculty elects the chairperson). All three items were perceived by KAU and RU chairpersons as of high importance; but, UPM chairpersons rated them as of no importance. Using the background data gathered about the respective universities, it seems reasonable to conclude that these differences may be explained by the fact that the department chairpersons at KAU and RU are elected, while the department chairpersons at UPM are appointed. Responses to the following items support this idea. Item 17 (the academic vice president endorses the candidate) was viewed as of high importance by UPM chair- persons, while it was rated as of medium importance by KAU and RU chairpersons. Item 24 (the person selected can be removed from office by the department faculty) was considered as of no importance by UPM chairpersons, while KAU and RU held them to be of medium importance. A fourth item showed significant differences: Item 21--the person selected is periodically reviewed. UPM chairpersons considered it as 117 of high importance, while KAU and RU rated it as of no importance. Once again, present practices clarify a possible explanation for this difference. KAU and RU, like most government institutions, grants salary increases by adding a specific percentage to each employee's salary. UPM, however, uses a system of evaluation for all employees and bases the salary increase accordingly. In regard to the "should be" responses to items 10-25, Hypothesis 4 cannot be rejected based on the value of the total items. One item showed a significant difference: Item 15--the department faculty elects the chairperson. KAU and RU chairpersons consider it as of high importance, where- as UPM chairpersons rate it as of medium importance. One possible explanation for this divergence may involve the fact that the majority of UPM chairpersons are Saudi. It seems reasonable to suggest that, consequently, these Saudis believe an elected fellow-Saudi chairperson is at least as likely to understand the country customs and cultural needs of the faculty than an elected non-Saudi chairperson. Section 3 dealt with the major responsibilities of the department chairpersons. Twenty-six items were used to measure the perceived importance by department chairpersons of responsibilities as they exist and as they should be. Hypotheses 5 and 6 were tested to measure significant 118 differences in perceptions of the major responsibilities in terms Of "is" and "should be." Hypothesis 5, which investi- gates the "is" responses, cannot be rejected because of the result obtained when the total items are measured by the F-test. However, six items show significant differences, including item 6 (maintaining and updating department infor- mation in university catalogue), item 7 (teaching), and item 10 (representing the department on college/university committees). All three universities' chairpersons rated these items between an absolute must and of high importance. How- ever, KAU chairpersons teach more hours than RU chairpersons who, in turn, teach more hours than UPM chairpersons. In addition, UPM chairpersons participate in facilitating faculty research and publication more than KAU and RU chairpersons. It is likely that these practices are a consequence of the delegation of authority from the rector of UPM to the depart- ment chairpersons. This background information may also explain the differences found in the analysis of item 23 (assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment). UPM per- ceived this item as an absolute must, while KAU and RU con- sidered it as of high importance. Regarding item 3 (preparing department budget), KAU and RU considered this item as of medium importance, with means of 2.258 and 2.917, respectively, while UPM saw this item as of low importance, with a mean of 3.538. 119 When these same items are analyzed for "should be" responses, differences are not significant enough to reject Hypothesis 6. The value of the F-test does not meet the standard level for significance. However, one item out of the twenty-six reveals a significant difference: Item 11-- handling student grievances. All three universities rated this item as of high importance, but there was a significant difference in the rank compared with other items. KAU chair- persons ranked item 11 twenty-second, RU chairpersons ranked it twelfth, and UPM chairpersons saw it as twelfth also. The fourth section dealt with the requirements for job satisfaction. Fifteen items were used to measure the importance of requirements for job satisfaction at present and as the respondents felt they should be. Hypotheses 7 and 8 were designed to test for significant differences among the three universities. Because results of the F-test on the total items do not meet the standard for significance, Hypothesis 7 ("is") cannot be rejected. However, three of the fifteen items do meet the standard for significant dif— ferences among the three universities: Item 2 (reduction of teaching hours) and item 14 (having clerical/secretarial support). KAU and RU chairpersons rated the two items as of medium importance, but UPM saw them as of high importance. Looking at the background data about current practices, we note that KAU and RU chairpersons teach more hours and have 120 at most part-time clerical/secretarial support. On the other hand, UPM chairpersons seem satisfied with their schedule of teaching and with their clerical/secretarial support since they give the same rating to the "is" and "should be" items. When these same fifteen items are used for responses to "should be," the value of the F-test on the total items does not meet the standard for significance. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 cannot be rejected. The two items which received medium importance by KAU and RU when treated by "is" were viewed as of high importance and an absolute must by "should be." CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Most universities are evaluated on their achievement of three major goals: teaching, research, and service. The academic department is the place where these goals are carried out. Thus, the position of the department chair- person is critical as the first among equals, as a leader, and as a focus for demands from inside and outside the department. This study attempts to identify the requirements (qualifications), process of selection, major responsibili- ties, and requirements for job satisfaction of department chairpersons in Saudi Arabian universities. Three univer- sities out of six were selected for the following reasons. Each university is located in a different region of Saudi Arabia: Riyadh University is in the central province, King Abdulaziz University is in the western province, and the University of Petroleum and Minerals is in the eastern province. These institutions are all characterized by a \\) diversity of majors and by their adOption of the western educational system. All the department chairpersons at the three universities were asked to participate in this study. 121 122 The target population consists of seventy-two chairpersons at King Abdulaziz University, sixty-four at Riyadh University, and sixteen at the University of Petroleum and Minerals. Questionnaires were personally distributed and collected by the researcher in order to secure a high percentage of return as well as to be available to clarify the instrument. The questionnaire used in this study consists of four sections: Section I. Five questions are used to gather infor- mation about the respondents. Section II. This part of the questionnaire measures the perception of department chairpersons of the requirements and of the process of selection. Section III. Here, twenty-six items are used to inves- tigate the major responsibilities of the department chairperson. Section IV. The requirements for job satisfaction are measured using the fifteen items. Of the total of 152 questionnaires distributed, 129 were collected. Of these, four questionnaires were discarded because of incomplete responses. The remaining 125 complete questionnaires were used in this study. Eight null hypotheses were tested for a 0.05 level of significance using the univariate F-test. These hypotheses 123 measured significant differences, if any, among responses from the three universities regarding the importance of the requirements, process of selection, major responsibilities, and requirements for job satisfaction of the department chairpersons as they currently exist and as they should be. Major Findings Findings Regarding Demographic Data Of the respondents in this study of three Saudi Arabian universities, the largest number hold the rank of assistant professor. The span of time spent by the subjects in their departments ranges from less than one year to seventeen years; but, the largest number have been in their departments for four years. As chairpersons, the respon- dents have held their positions for between less than one year and ten years; however, the majority have served as chairpersons for two years. Non-Saudi subjects make up 52 percent of the group, while the remaining subjects are Saudis. Findings Regarding the Requirement (Qualification) for Department Chairpersons in Saudi Arabian Universities The perceptions of the department chairpersons of current requirements for the position reveal that eight items are seen as an absolute must, of high importance, or of medium importance (see Table 4.1). One item, (3)--Has 124 had formal administrative training, was viewed as of low importance. Significant differences at the 0.05 level among the three universities were found for three items: (1)-- Shows strong interest in the position; (5)--Has strong research background; and (7)--Has published book(s) and/or article(s). Hypothesis 1 was rejected. Regarding their perception of what the job require- ments should be, the chairpersons rated the same items as an absolute must, of high importance, or of medium importance (see Table 4.4). The statistical analysis doesn't reveal any significant differences in responses for any of the nine items among the three universities as well as for the total items as a group. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 cannot be rejected. Findings Regardingythe Process of Selection as Perceived by the Department Chairperson in Saudi Arabian Universities Items 10-25 in the first section were used to iden- tify the process of selection for the department chairperson. Regarding perceptions of current practice, seven items out of the sixteen received ratings of high and medium importance (see Table 4.6). The following items were considered of low importance: (16)--The college dean appoints the chairperson; (25)--The person selected can be removed from office by the college dean; (18)--A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed; (11)--A college committee of 125 administrators recommends the candidate; (12)--A university- wide committee endorses the candidate; (24)--The person selected can be removed from office by the department faculty; (23)--The person selected may not be reappointed; and (19)-- The person selected serves for an indefinite term. Item 14 (Student representatives endorse the candidate) was viewed as of no importance. The statistical analysis reveals sig- nificant differences at the 0.05 level among the three univer- sities for these items: (10)--A department faculty committee recommends the candidate; (l3)-—A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate; (l4)--Student representatives endorse the candidate; (15)--The department faculty elects the chairperson; (18)--A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed; (20)--The person selected serves for a definite term; (21)--The person selected is periodically reviewed; and (25)--The person selected can be removed from office by the college dean. Hypothesis 3 was rejected based on the result of the total items. Regarding perceptions of what the process of selection should be, the department chairpersons rated eight items as of high and medium importance (see Table 4.9); but, the following items were perceived as of low importance: (17)-- The academic vice president endorses the candidate; (10)--A college committee of administrators recommends the candidate; (12)--A university-wide committee endorses the candidate; (16)—-The college dean appoints the chairperson; (23)--The 126 person selected can be removed from office by the college dean; (l4)--Student representatives endorse the candidate; and (19)--The person selected serves for an indefinite term. A significant difference at the 0.05 level among the three universities was found for three items: (13)--A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate; (15)--The department faculty elects the chairperson; and (21)--The person selected is periodically reviewed. But, Hypothesis 4 cannot be rejected based on the total items. Findings Regarding Major Responsi— bilities as Perceived by the Department Chairpersons in Saudi Arabian Universities To determine perceived priorities, responses to the twenty-six items describing the major responsibilities for the department chairperson were ranked according to mean ratings for "is" and "should be." As far as present practice is concerned, the three universities viewed twenty-five of the twenty-six items as of high and medium importance (see Table 5.1). Item 25 (Controlling financial expenditures) was considered of low importance, while six items are significantly different at the 0.05 level ((3)-—Preparing department budget; (6)--Main- taining and updating department information in university catalogue; (7)--Teaching; (lO)--Representing the department on college/university committees; (16)--Maintaining records 127 of student grades and programs; and (23)--Assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment). The total twenty-six items are not significantly different. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 cannot be rejected. When the items are considered in terms of what the responsibilities of chairpersons should be, responses result in the following ratings. Six items are viewed as an absolute must and twenty items are seen as of high importance (see Table 5.5). A significant difference at the 0.05 level among the three universities was found for only one item: (11)-- Handling student grievances. Hypothesis 6 cannot be rejected based on the value of the total items. Findings Regarding the Requirements for Job Satisfaction as Perceived by Chairpersons in Saudi Arabian Universities Fifteen items are used to determine the importance of the requirements for job satisfaction at present and what the importance should be. Perceptions of present requirements at the three universities reveal three items are of high importance, and eleven items are of medium importance. Only item 3 (Having a full-time administrative assistant) is viewed as of low importance (see Table 6.1). Responses to three items show significant differences among the three universities: (2)-- Reduction of teaching hours; (5)--Having more prestige than faculty; and (l4)--Having clerical/secretarial support. 128 However, the F-test does not show significant differences on the total of the items; so, Hypothesis 7 cannot be rejected. When viewed in terms of what should be, responses to the fifteen items result in the following ratings: Two items are seen as absolute musts, twelve items as of high impor- tance, and one item, (5)--Having more prestige than faculty, as of medium importance (see Table 6.4). One item, (2)-- Reduction of teaching hours, showed a significant difference. When the F-test was applied to the total items, resulting differences do not meet the 0.05 standard for significance. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 cannot be rejected. Recommendations The chairpersons of the three universities believe the most important requirements (qualifications) for their position in Saudi Arabian universities should be the following: Able to communicate effectively with colleagues; earned Ph.D.; able to participate in department/college/ university professional activities; administrative talent; a strong research background; a strong interest in the position; demonstrated outstanding teaching ability; and published book(s) and/or article(s).‘ The chairpersons of the three universities believe the process of selection for the department chairperson in Saudi Arabian universities should be as follows: Selection to serve for a definite 129 term; election by the department faculty; reappointable after original term; recommendations of candidates by a department faculty; and periodic reviews of the person selected. The chairpersons of the three universities believe the most important responsibilities for the department chairperson in Saudi Arabian universities should be devel- Oping and reviewing department-courses with the faculty; submitting department annual reports; developing new and reviewing current program requirements; representing the department on college/university committees; facilitating faculty research and publication; promoting COOperation with other departments, colleges, and university units; main- taining and updating department information in the university catalogue; assigning teaching schedules and other duties to faculty; assigning work to department staff (not faculty); submitting periodic reports required by the university; preparing the department budget; providing information for communicating with professional academic groups; recruiting, selecting, evaluating, terminating, and rewarding department staff (not faculty); teaching; facilitating professional development of faculty; assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment; handling faculty grievances; informing stu- dents on academic policies and Opportunities; selecting and reviewing learning materials; recruiting, selecting, 130 evaluating, terminating, and rewarding faculty; handling student grievances; counseling and advising students; maintaining records of students; maintaining records of students' grades and programs; maintaining faculty personnel records; representing the department to non-university community groups; and controlling financial expenditures. The chairpersons of the three universities believe the most important requirements for job satisfaction for the department chairperson in Saudi Arabian universities should be having clerical/secretarial support; getting an additional salary increment for administrative duties; gaining a sense of achievement; getting reimbursement of travel expenses for conventions and conferences; returning to faculty status at conclusion of term of office; having autonomy from the dean in managing the department; facing challenging activities; reduction of teaching hours; having Opportunities for advance- ment; having increased research Opportunities; having a full- time administrative assistant; having flexibility in sched- uling office hours; achieving personal growth and develOpment; and getting personal recognition. Recommendations for Possible Implementation 1. This researcher strongly recommends that univer- sities in Saudi Arabia should use the findings of this study as a guide to clarify the responsibilities of department 131 chairpersons, to provide a prescribed policy among department faculty, and to convince them of the importance of taking into consideration the uniqueness of each university. 2. To minimize the disadvantages of a centralized system and to achieve the specific objectives of the academic department, each university should delegate certain financial and administrative authority to the department chairpersons. 3. Orientation meetings should be held at the start of each academic year, as well as subsequent follow-up meetings throughout the year, to provide chairpersons with information about resources at the university, their roles, the regulations of the university, the available facilities for faculty members and for students, their responsibilities, and the philoSOphical aspects of the relation between the role of a chairperson and the achievement of departmental objectives. 4. Department chairpersons at King Abdulaziz Univer- sity and at Riyadh University have heavier teaching schedules than chairpersons at the University of Petroleum and Minerals. In the questionnaire, the item "teaching" received signifi- cantly different responses among the three universities. This study shows that the role of chairpersons goes far be- yond teaching. Thus, the researcher recommends that the teaching hours for the department chairpersons should be 132 realistically limited to allow him/her to supervise and lead other activities including research and services. 5. The analysis of the data shows that responses to the item "clerical/secretarial support" were significantly different among the three universities. Chairpersons at UPM are satisfied with the support they receive; but, those at KAU and RU are not satisfied. The researcher was told that some chairpersons resign because they spend most of their time on office and clerical work. In view of the many administrative-level responsibilities of chairpersons at King Abdulaziz University and Riyadh University, suffi- cient clerical/secretarial support should be provided. Recommendations for Further Study 1. This study should be replicated at other univer- sities such as the Islamic University in Medina, Mohammed Ibn Sand in Riyadh, and King Faisal University in Dharan. A comparison of results should be made to see if there are different trends. 2. Future studies should be expanded to include other pOpulations in Saudi Arabian universities such as faculty members and deans. 3. Higher education is a relatively new and expanding field in Saudi Arabia. Most universities in the country establish new colleges, departments, and increase their 133 student enrollments every year. The writer suggests that future studies be extended to include university organiza- tional structure. 4. University chairpersons make up the largest group among the administrators. Thus, a study of the feasibility of establishing a program for administrative training for department chairpersons could lead to a significant addition to the field of higher education in Saudi Arabia. 5. Since administrators of higher education have a very critical role, a national program for professional and personal development should be initiated and implemented. Virtually every college and university in Saudi Arabia is in need of such an important supplement. APPENDICES APPENDIX A UNIVERSITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA APPENDIX A UNIVERSITIES IN SAUDI ARABIA Riyadh University The first university established in Saudi Arabia was the University of Riyadh. Founded in 1957 with the College of Arts, it gradually added the College of Science, the College of Administrative Science, the College of Pharmacy, the College of Agriculture, the College of Engineering, the College of Education, the College of Medicine, the Arabic Language Institute, the College of Education in Abha, the College of Dentistry, the College of Allied Medical Sciences, the Center for Female University Education, and the Graduate School. Riyadh University is a public, scientific, and cultural institution whose aims are: a. To ensure ways and means of university education and postgraduate studies in various arts and sciences and specialized fields of knowledge. b. To give special care to Islamic studies and researchers. ‘ c. To prepare teachers. d. To develop science and knowledge through carrying on and encouraging scientific research work. e. To enhance cultural, sports, social and scientific activities. ("The Self-Study," Part I, pp. 6-7) ' 134 135 In the following discussion, the colleges within Riyadh University will be listed. The various departments within the colleges and the degrees which they award will be addressed:1 College of Arts ' The College of Arts was Opened in 1957, the first in the university. It is composed of the Institute of Lin- guistics and seven departments: 1. The Department of Arabic 2. The Department of English 3. The Department of History 4. The Department of Geography 5. The Department of Mass Communications (third year specialization in journalism, public relations, and radio and television) 6. The Department of Social Studies (third year specialization in sociology and social work) 7. The Department of Archaeology and Museumology The following degrees and certificates are awarded: 1. B.A. in all seven departments and the Institute of Linguistics. 2. M.A. and Ph.D. in Arabic, geography and history. 3. High Diploma (one year of graduate work) in Mass Communications and Library Science. 1All the following information has been taken from (1) The Self-Study, Part I, A Description of the University, April 1975; (2) The Bulletin of Riyadh University, 1979-80; (3) Higher Education in Saudi Arabia: On the Road to the Future. 136 College of Science In 1958, the College of Science was established. The College of Science has been marked by a progressive outlook which has consistently aided it in keeping abreast of worldwide advances in the basic sciences while working toward fulfillment of the scientific needs of a develOping country. The College of Science, at present, includes the following departments: 1. The Department of Geology 2. The Department of Zoology 3. The Department of Mathematics 4. The Department of Physics 5. The Department of Chemistry 6. The Department of Botany 7. The Department of Statistics The degree of Bachelor of Science is offered by all seven departments. College of Administrative Science From its inception in 1959, the College of Adminis- trative Science has aimed to provide studies in economics, administration, accounting, and political science primarily at the undergraduate level. The College of Administrative Science, initially known as the College of Commerce, 137 implements the credit hour system within the college, with a semester rather than an academic year system. The College of seven departments: 1. The 2. The 3. The 4. The 5. The 6. The 7. The The accounting, studies. The College Department Department Department Department Department Department Department Administrative Science includes of of of of of of of Economics Political Science Accounting Business Administration Law Financial Science Public Administration degree of Bachelor of Arts is awarded in economics, management, and political and international of Pharmacy The College of Pharmacy is a professional school whose main concern is the health of the public. Its main goal is to professionally qualify pharmacists who will serve, with other health professionals, to preserve health, treat diseases, and give expert advice to the public. The College of Pharmacy, one of the colleges eStablished in 1959 to fulfill the broad goals Of the university, has four departments: 138 l. The Department of Pharmacognosy 2. The Department of Pharmacology 3. The Department of Pharmaceutics 4. The Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry After completion of a five-year program Of study, students are awarded the degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceuti- cal Science. The College of Agriculture The objective of the College of Agriculture is to train Saudi agricultural experts and researchers who will undertake the task of developing agriculture in the country and exploiting the available potential of the water, land and human resources for national self-sufficiency and then for exportation. The following departments are included within the College of Agriculture: 1. The Department of Agricultural Economy and Rural Society 2. The Department of Animal Production 3. The Department of Soil Science 4. The Department of Plant Products 5. The Department of Food Processing 6. The Department of Agricultural Engineering 7. The Department of Plant Protection 139 Students can earn a Bachelor of Science degree as a generalist in agriculture, or they may specialize in one of four different combinations: 1. Plant products and plant protection 2. Soil conservation and agricultural engineering 3. Agricultural economy and rural society 4. Animal production and agricultural industry College of Engineering In 1962, the College of Engineering was started as a joint project between Saudi Arabia and the UNESCO. By 1968, it became an official part of Riyadh University. The college, aiming at providing the country with qualified professionals, is composed of six departments: 1. The Department of Mechanical Engineering 2. The Department of Civil Engineering 3. The Department of Architectural Engineering 4. The Department of Electrical Engineering 5. The Department of Chemical Engineering 6. The Department of Petroleum Engineering All departments offer the Bachelor of Science degree for completion of an academic program. 140 The College of Education There are two Colleges of Education which belong to the University of Riyadh. One, located at the main campus, was founded in 1966; the other, located in Abha (southern region), was established in 1976. Both aim to serve the needs of the country by preparing quality educators to teach in the elementary, intermediate and secondary schools. At the same time, the colleges work in close COOperation with the Ministry of Education to improve the academic standing of current teachers and administrators through ongoing programs of conferences and seminars. The College of Education in Riyadh offers study through the following departments: 1. The Department of Education 2. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction 3. The Department of Art Education 4. The Department of Physical Education 5. The Department of Islamic Studies 6. The Department of Psychology Supplementing these areas, the College of Education in Abha has these four departments: 1. The Department of Social Studies 2. The Department of Language Studies 3. The Department of Mathematics and Science Studies 4. The Department of Education Studies 141 The College of Education in Riyadh awards the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, and Master of Arts; the College of Education in Abha offers the degree of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. The College of Medicine The College of Medicine was Opened in 1969-70. It aims to help the citizens of the country realize the greatest possible potential for healthful and productive lives. Under a long-term agreement with the University of London, technical assistance and teaching personnel are provided. The College of Medicine is composed of the following departments: 1. The Department of General Surgery 2. The Department of Internal Medicine 3. The Department of Anatomy 4. The Department Of Physiology 5. The Department of Biochemistry 6. The Department of Pediatrics 7. The Department of Pathology 8. The Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics 9. The Department of Forensic Medicine 10. The Department of Ear, Nose, and Throat 11. The Department of Community Health 12. The Department of Opthalmology 142 The College of Medicine awards the degree of M.B.B.S. (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery). The College of Dentistry The College of Dentistry, founded in 1975 to fulfill the mission of Riyadh University, has three departments: 1. The Department of Biomedical Dental Science 2. The Department of Preventive Dental Science 3. The Department of Restorative Dental Science The degree of Bachelor Of Dental Surgery is awarded after completion of a program of ten academic semesters. The College of Allied Medical Sciences This college was founded in 1975 and became affiliated with the College of Nursing Science in 1976. Plans for the college call for seven departments which will be in Operation in 1981. Thus far, only the degree of Bachelor of Science in Nursing is conferred after completion of eight academic semesters. The Arabic Language Institute Before 1975, the institute was a part of the College of Arts; it was established as a joint effort by the Depart- ment of Arabic Literature and the Department of English to teach the Arabic language to non-Arabic-speaking peOple. In 1975, it became a separate academic entity, aimed at 143 offering instruction in the Arabic language and spreading knowledge of the Arabic culture and Islam. King Abdulaziz University King Abdulaziz University (KAU) is located in the western province of Saudi Arabia. Its campuses are located in three cities: Mecca, Jedda, and Medina. In Mecca, there are two colleges--the College of Sharia (Islamic law) and the College of Education; Jedda holds the College of Economics and Business Administration, the College of Arts and Humanities, the College of Science, the College of Engineering, the College of Medicine, and two specialized institutes (Oceanography and Meteorology); in Medina, there is a College of Education. KAU, founded in 1967 as a private institute, started with the College of Economics and Administration. In 1971, a royal decree made it a public institution. The College of Sharia (Islamic law), established in 1949, and the College of Education, established in 1950, have been affiliated with KAU since 1971. The aims of this university are similar to those of Riyadh University. In the following discussion, each college's date of establishment, departments and degrees awarded will be addressed. 144 College of Sharia (Islamic Law) of the 1. major, Master The College of Sharia, founded in 1949, is comprised following departments: Sharia (Islamic law) Arabic Language History Dawa (Islamic action) Qadha (Islamic judicature) Hadhara (Islamic civilization) Since some of these departments have more than one the Bachelor of Arts is offered in all majors. The of Arts degree is offered in Sharia, Arabic Language, History, and Hadhara. The Ph.D. is Offered in the Sharia and Arabic Language Departments. The College of Education (in Mecca) has these departments: 1. 2. 3. The College of Education in Mecca, founded in 1950, Department Department Department Department Department Department Department Department of of of of of of of of Education Curriculum and Teaching Methods Geography Chemistry Mathematics English Biology Physics 145 9. Department of Psychology 10. Department of Physical Education 11. Department of Art Education The Bachelor of Arts degree is awarded in all majors. The Special Diploma is offered in these fields: education, psychology, and curriculum and teaching methods. The Master of Arts is granted in administration and educational plan- ning, curriculum and teaching methods, and psychology. The College of Economics and Business Administration This college was established in 1976 as the first faculty (when KAU was private). It includes four depart— ments: 1. Department of Accounting 2. Department of Business Administration 3. Department of Economics 4. Department of Public Administration The degree of Bachelor of Arts is offered by all four departments; the Master of Arts degree is awarded in business administration and accounting. The College of Arts and Humanities The College of Arts and Humanities, founded in 1969, includes eight departments: 146 1. Department of English 2. Department of Geography 3. Department of History 4. Department of Library Science 5. Department of Sociology 6.. Department of Communication and Journalism 7. Department of Arabic Language 8. Department of Islamic Studies The Bachelor of Arts degree is awarded by all the departments. The Master of Arts degree can be earned in history, sociology, geography and library science. The College of Science The establishment of this college took place in 1972. It includes the following departments: 1. Department of Mathematics 2. Department of Physics 3. Department of Chemistry 4. Department of Biology 5. Department of Geology 6. Department of Statistics The Bachelor of Science degree is offered in all majors. 147 College of Engineering The College of Engineering was founded in 1975 with the following departments: 1. Department of Civil Engineering 2. Department of Electrical Engineering 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering 4. Department of Industrial Engineering 5. Department of Mining Engineering 6. Department of Nuclear Engineering 7. Department of Architecture 8. Department of Statistics 9. Department of Applied Science 10. Department of Engineering Mathematics The Bachelor of Arts degree is awarded in the College of Engineering. College of Medicine The College of Medicine was founded in 1975 to help fulfill the aims of the university. Currently, it has ten departments in which students can take courses which appear in the bulletin of admission and registration. The college offers the Bachelor degree. The College of Earth Science The Institute of Geology, founded in 1970 (1390), has now become the College of Earth Science. This college 148 includes eight departments and offers the Bachelor, Masters and Ph.D. degrees. The College of Education (in Medina) The College of Education in Medina was founded in 1977 to serve general education needs and to offer higher education in different majors. At present, it has the following departments: 1. Department of Planning and Educational Administration 2. Department of Islamic Studies 3. Department of Educational Psychology 4. Department of Social Studies 5. Department of Art Education 6. Department of Mathematics 7. Department of Biology 8. Department of English Language 9. Department of Arabic Language The Bachelor's degree is awarded for program completion. Summary KAU has three campuses with nine colleges and two institutes: the College of Sharia and Education in Mecca, the College of Economics and Administration, the College of Arts and Human Studies, the College of Science, the College of Engineering, the College of Earth Science, and the College 149 of Medicine, and two specialized institutes (Oceanography and Meteorology) in Jedda. In Medina, there is another College of Education. These colleges include seventy-two departments.* The Colleges of Sharia and Education, located in Mecca, will be the starting point for a new university called Umm Al-Qura--another name for the city of Mecca. As the result of royal decree, this university will operate at the beginning of fiscal year 1981-82. University of Petroleum and Minerals The University of Petroleum and Minerals (UPM) is located in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia. Officially, UPM was established in 1963. Originally named the College of Petroleum and Minerals, its name and status was changed from college to university in 1975. The vast petroleum and mineral resources of Saudi Arabia pose a complex and exciting challenge for scientific and technical education. To meet this challenge, the University has as its goals the advanced training of students in the fields of science and engineering for service and leadership in the king- dom's petroleum and mineral industries and the promotion of research resulting in contributions to knowledge in these fields. In addition, because it derives a distinctive character from its being a technological University in the land of Islam, the University is unreservedly committed to deepening and broadening the faith of its Moslem students and *The information about KAU was obtained from (1) Directorate General for the DevelOpment of Higher Educa- tion, Ministry of Higher Education, 1980; (2) The Annual Statistic Book (1400-1399) (1979-1980), King Abdulaziz University; and (3) Bulletin of Admission and Registration, Jedda, KAU, 1980. 150 to instilling in them an appreciation for the major contributions of their people to the world of mathe- matics and science. All areas of UPM--facilities, faculty, students, and programs--are directed to the attainment of these goals. (Undergraduate Bulletin 1979/81, p. 11) The University of Petroleum and Minerals offers a preparatory year program, four academic colleges, a college of graduate studies, a research institute, a language institute, and a physical education department. The colleges, their departments and the degrees Offered will be addressed below. College of Applied Engineering The program of the College of Applied Engineering aims to produce technically proficient practitioners of the engineering arts, not researchers or designers. The grad- uates of this program are urgently needed for the pursuit of industry at all levels in the kingdom. They will be in demand by all companies which have need of Operators and engineering supervisors (Al-Hazzam, 1975, p. 128). The College of Applied Engineering includes four departments: 1. Department of Applied Chemical Engineering 2. Department of Applied Civil Engineering 3. Department of Applied Electrical Engineering 4. Department of Applied Mechanical Engineering 151 The Bachelor degree is conferred by the College of Applied Engineering to students who complete their chosen programs. The College of Engineering Science The objective of the curriculum of the College of Engineering Science is to produce engineers of the highest technical competence who will participate in the design, managerial direction, and research and development programs of the petroleum and minerals industries. The major thrust of the program is oriented towards mathematics, computer, research, design, and management. Research interests are cultivated within the curriculum of the college (Al-Hazzam, 1975, p. 131). The College of Engineering is comprised of the following departments: 1. Department of Architectural Engineering 2. Department of Chemical Engineering 3. Department of Civil Engineering 4. Department of Electrical Engineering 5. Department of Mechanical Engineering 6. Department of Petroleum Engineering 7. Department of Systems Engineering The Bachelor degree is awarded by the college for completion of appropriate programs. 152 College of Industrial Management The College of Industrial Management provides educational and research programs with internationally recognized standards designed to prepare students for managerial and professional positions in business and indus- trial, governmental, military and other organizations. The college offers a Bachelor of Science degree in industrial management. College of Sciences In general, the curriculum of the college provides the student with: 1. A thorough knowledge of his own particular field of study. 2. A solid foundation in mathematics and in the applied fields of science. 3. Exposure to a reasonable number of cultural courses in humanities and social sciences. (Undergraduate Bulletin, 1979/81, pp. 85-86) The college includes the following departments: 1. Department of Chemistry 2. Department of Earth Sciences 3. Department of General Studies 4. Department of Mathematical Sciences 5. Department of Physics The Bachelor of Science degree is offered by all but the Department of General Studies which does not give 153 a degree (it Offers courses for all the university and is administered by the College of Sciences). College of Graduate Studies The College of Graduate Studies is the organizational unit of the university responsible for the administration of programs, instruction, and research leading to graduate credit and graduate degrees. The College of Graduate Studies offers graduate programs leading to the Master of Science (M.S.) and the Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) (Graduate Bulletin, 1979/81, pp. 9-10). Summary The College of Applied Engineering, the College of Engineering Science, and the College of Sciences include sixteen academic departments. Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud Islamic University The history of this university goes back to 1950 when the first institute was established in Riyadh. The College of Sharia (Islamic law) was founded in 1953, and the College of Arabic Language was founded in 1954. Ori- ginally named "The General Directorate of Colleges and Religious Institutes," it was officially changed in 1975 by royal decree to the University of Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud. The university consists of the College of Islamic Law, the College of Arabic Language, the College of 154 "Usul Al-Din" (theology), the College of Social Sciences, the Higher Institute of Islamic Da'waa, and the Higher Institute of Judicature--in Riyadh; in Abha (southern region), the university has the College of Sharia and Arabic; and, in Qassim are the Colleges of Sharia and Arabic. Affiliated with the university are forty-two aca- demic (religious) institutes (middle and secondary levels) located throughout the country. The university aims to train judges in Islamic law and to prepare teachers in Islamic, Arabic and sOcial sciences. The university awards a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Master of Arts degree, and the Ph.D. in different majors. Islamic University This university, founded in 1961 as an international Islamic establishment, aims to pursue the message of Islam. It is Open for Saudi and non-Saudi peOple from all over the world. Until 1975, it was Operated under the auspices of the Grand Mufti; since then, it falls under the direction of the new Ministry of Higher Education. The university contains the following colleges: 1. The College of Sharia (Islamic law) 2. The College of Islamic Mission and Theology 3. The College of Holy Quran and Islamic Studies 4. The College of Hadith (the prophet's sayings) and Islamic Studies 155 5. The College of Arabic Language and Literature 6. The College of Higher Studies King Faisal University This is the latest and most recent university in Saudi Arabia, established in 1975. Located in the eastern province, its main campus is in Al-Ahsa, with a branch in Dammam. This new university, a comprehensive higher educa- tion institution, has as its purpose the dissemination of science and knowledge in the eastern province and in neighboring Arab Gulf States. The university consists of the following colleges: 1. College of Medicine and Medical Sciences 2. College of Architecture and Planning 3. College of Agriculture and Nutrition 4. College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Resources APPENDIX B LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN ' 48824 APPENDIX B June 11, 1980 LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE Saudi Arabian Educational Mission 2223 West LOOp South Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77027 Dear Sir: I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Awad Al-Thobeti, who is at present a graduate student working on his Ph.D. in the Depart- ment of Administration and Higher Education under my direction. In addition to required course work, we require that all students write a dissertation based on original research. Mr. Al-Thobeti has proposed a study of The Role of Departmental Chairpersons in Saudi Arabian Universities. He plans to return to Saudi Arabia to do his research during the winter quarter of this academic year, which means that he will leave here around mid-December and return about mid-March. These plans meet with my approval. I request that you write to King Abdulaziz University in order to secure support for this student in certain critical areas such as transportation and access to information and materials. Your prompt attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated. If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to write. 081..» Maryl Davis, Ph.D. Assistant Vice President Sincerely, and Associate Professor Administration 8 Higher Education MD/g 156 MS U i: m Affirmatiw Action /Equl Opportgqivy htlituu'on MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘ 157 UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH I.\'\'0I VINO EAST LANSING ' ”CHIGAN ' 48824 HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS) 238 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING fifl)§$fl&> January 6, 1981 Mr. Awad M. Al-Thobeti P. 0. Box 302 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Dear Mr. Al-Thobeti: . Subject: Proposal Regarding the Status of Department Chairpersons in Saudi Arabian Universities The above referenced project was recently submitted for review to the UCRIHS. we are pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project at its meeting on January 5. l98l Projects involving the use of human subjects must be reviewed at least annually. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for obtaining apprOpriate UCRIHS approval prior to the anniversary date noted above. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, DEW Henry E. Bredeck Chairman, UCRIHS HEB/jms cc: Dr. Marylee Davis 158 Dear Department Chairperson: Enclosed is a questionnaire which has been designed to investigate your perspective concerning the status of the academic department chairperson. The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of department chairpersons about their positions, both at the present time and what the procedure of selecting depart- ment chairpersons, their major responsibilities, and their requirements for job satisfaction should be. An additional purpose is to compare the perceptions of chairpersons about these concerns among three different institutions: King Abdulaziz University, Riyadh University, and the University of Petroleum and Minerals The results of the study will be included in a dissertation to fulfill the requirements for the Ph.D. degree at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. All answers will be strictly confidential. The results will be reported by groups that eliminate the need to disclose individual names and departments with colleges. Please respond to each item by circling the letter on the appropriate space provided. There are four major areas: (1) demographic data, (2) procedure for the department chair- person, (3) major responsibilities of the department chair- person, and (4) requirements for job satisfaction. You are asked to indicate your perception of what has been the practice concerning each item and what you would like the practice to be. Please indicate the degree of importance of each item by ratings of A-B-C-D-E for "IS" and by ratings of A-B—C-D-E for "SHOULD BE." Thank you very much for your COOperation. Awad Mastour Al-Thubaity Candidate for the Ph.D. degree in Administration and Higher Education 159 Questionnaire SECTION I: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 1. With which university are you associated? (Please circle the appropriate letter.) a. King Abdulaziz University b.~ Riyadh University c. Petroleum University 2. What is your present rank? (Please circle the appropriate letter.) a. Professor b. Associate Professor c. Assistant Professor d. Lecturer e. Other (please specify): 3. How long have you been in your current department? 4. How long have you served as chairperson of this department? ‘ 5. Please indicate which of the following describes you. a. Saudi b. Non-Saudi SECTION II: REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS OF SELECTION FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON Please circle the most apprOpriate answer at the right for each item according to the following scale. The scale ranges from A to E (A indicates that an item is of great importance; E indicates that it is of no importance). Please mark one letter for "IS" and one letter for "SHOULD BE" on each item. Your answers on "IS" reflect your perception of what is prac— ticed presently, and your answers on "SHOULD BE" reflect your expectations of what the procedure of selection (for the department chairperson) should be. Spaces have been left for you to add and mark any items which have not been included but which you consider important. 160 SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD A = an absolute must B = high importance C = medium importance D = low importance E = no importance Selection Requirement of the Department Chairperson 1. Shows strong interest in the position 2. Has administrative talent 3. Has had formal administrative training 4. Demonstrates outstanding teaching ability 5. Has strong research background 6. Has an earned Ph.D. 7. Has published book(s) and/or article(s) 8. Participates in department/ college/university pro- fessional activities 9. Communicates effectively with colleagues 10. A department faculty committee recommends the candidate 11. A college committee of admin- istrators recommends the candidate 12. A university-wide committee endorses the candidate 13. A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate SHOULD IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS BE: 3’? 3’? 3’? Si> 3’? 3i> 3i> 3’? mm mm mm WU! mm will CU!!! NW 00 00 00 00 DO 00 00 00 3'» 3i> >i> 3’5 3’> mu: (I)!!! woo woo cam 00 00 DU DU 00 00 00 DU DU UU MM Elm MEI DIM I'll?! MIT] DC! CD CD CU UU tilt! Fill?! CD CD UU MCI! Elm MEI MM Elm 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 161 Student representatives endorse the candidate The department faculty elects the chairperson The college dean appoints the chairperson The academic vice president endorses the candidate A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed The person selected serves for an indefinite term The person selected for a definite term The person selected serves is periodically reviewed The person selected be reappointed The person selected be reappointed The person selected removed from office department faculty The person selected removed from office college dean may may not can be by the can be by the SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: 3’> 3'? 3’» 3’> 3*> WW WW WW WW WW 00 00 CO 00 00 WW CO CO WU DU WW WW WW WW WW #*5 3i> 3’> 3’9 3’? 3i> WW WW WW WW WW WW 00 GD 00 00 ()0 00 00 WW DU WU WU WU 3i> 3'5 3'» WW WW WW 00 CW 00 00 00 WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW 162 SECTION III: MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON Please circle the most apprOpriate answer at the right for each item according to the scale below. Your answers on "IS" reflect your perception of what is practiced presently, and your answers on "SHOULD BE" reflect your expectations of what the major responsibilities of the department chair- person should be. The scale ranges from A to E (A indicates that an item is of great importance; E indicates that it is of no importance). Please mark one letter for "IS" and one letter for "SHOULD BE" on each item. Spaces have been left for you to add and mark any items which have not been included but which you consider important. A = an absolute must B = high importance C = medium importance D = low importance E = no importance Responsibilities of the Department Chairperson 1. Counseling and advising IS: A B C D E students SHOULD BE: A B C D E 2. Submitting department annual IS: A B C D E report SHOULD BE: A B C D E 3. Preparing department budget IS: A B C D E SHOULD BE: A B C D E 4. Handling faculty grievances IS: A B C D E SHOULD BE: A B C D E 5. DevelOping and reviewing IS: A B C D E department courses with faculty SHOULD BE: A B C D E 6. Maintaining and updating IS: A B C D E department information in SHOULD BE: A B C D E university catalogue 7. Teaching IS: A B C D E SHOULD BE: A B C D E 8. Assigning teaching schedules IS: A B C D E and other duties to faculty SHOULD BE: A B C D E 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 163 Assigning work to department staff (not faculty) Representing the department on college/university committees Handling student grievances Representing the department to non-university community groups Maintaining faculty personnel records Recruiting, selecting, evalua- ting, terminating, and rewarding faculty Recruiting, selecting, evalua- ting, terminating, and rewarding department staff (not faculty) Maintaining records of student. grades and programs Facilitating professional development of faculty Selecting and reviewing learning materials Promoting cooperation with other departments, colleges, and university units Informing students on academic policies and Opportunities Facilitating faculty research and publication DevelOping new and reviewing current program requirements Assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: fi'w Div 3'? Div WW WW WW WW 3’? S’D WW WW ()0 00 DD WU WW WW was WW ()0 >’> 3’? 3’3 3’? 3’» 3’9 S’W 3’> 01W UIW UIW UIW 00 00 DO 00 WW WW WW WW 00 DO 00 00 WW WU DU DU WW WW WW WW CO 00 00 00 WW WU WU WU WU WW WW WW WW DU CD CO CO WW WW WW WW WW 164 24. Providing information for IS: A C D communicating with professional SHOULD BE: A B C D E academic groups 25. Controlling financial IS: A B C D E expenditures SHOULD BE: A B C D E 26. Submitting periodic reports IS: A B C D E required by the university SHOULD BE: A B C D E 27. IS: A B C D E SHOULD BE: A B C D E 28. IS: A B C D E SHOULD BE: A B C D E SECTION IV: REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION Please circle the most apprOpriate answer at the right for each item according to the scale below. Your answers on "IS" reflect your perception of what is practiced presently, and your answers on "SHOULD BE" reflect your expectations of what the requirements for job satisfaction should be. The scale ranges from A to E (A indicates that an item is of great importance; E indicates that it is of no importance). Please mark one letter for "IS" and one letter for "SHOULD BE" on each item. Spaces have been left for you to add and mark any items which have not been included but which you consider important. an absolute must high importance medium importance low importance no importance moow» ll II II II II Requirements for Job Satisfaction 1. Getting an additional salary IS: A B C D increment for administrative SHOULD BE: A B C D E duties 2. Reduction of teaching hours IS: A B C D E SHOULD BE: A B C D E 3. Having a full-time adminis- IS: A B C D E trative assistant SHOULD BE: A B C D E 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 165 Having autonomy from the dean in managing the department Having more prestige than faculty Having flexibility in scheduling of office hours Having Opportunities for advancement Getting reimbursement of travel expenses for conventions and conferences Facing challenging activities Returning to faculty status at conclusion of term of office Getting personal recognition Gaining a sense of achievement Achieving personal growth and develOpment Having clerical/secretarial support Having increased research Opportunities SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: BE: IS: 3’? 3’3 3i> Fi> 3'9 3’? E’W 3’? #’> S’W S’V 3*» 3'> 3’» WW WW WW WW WW CO GO 00 no 00 WW WU WU DU WU WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW DO 00 CO 00 CO 00 DO ()0 00 WW UU DU WU WU UU DU WU WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW WW APPENDIX C F-TEST TABLES APPENDIX C F-TEST TABLES TABLE C1 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON (IS) df ms F P Between groups 2 2.0809 3.20 .0441 Within groups 122 .6496 TABLE C2 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON (SHOULD BE) df ms F P Between groups 2 .3202 1.1189 .3300 Within groups 122 .2862 TABLE C3 F-TEST--PROCESS OF SELECTION FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS (IS) df ms F P Between groups 2 .9198 3.2704 .0413 Within groups 122 .2812 166 167 TABLE C4 F-TEST--PROCESS OF SELECTION FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS (SHOULD BE) df ms F P Between groups 2 .0585 .2738 .7609 Within groups 122 .2135 TABLE C5 F-TEST--MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS (IS) df ms F P Between groups 2 .2612 .5193 .5962 Within groups 122 .5029 TABLE C6 F-TEST--MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS (SHOULD BE) df ms F P Between groups 2 .0585 .2568 .7739 Within groups 122 .2276 168 TABLE C7 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION (IS) df ms F P Between groups 2 1.2559 2.3042 .1042 Within groups 122 .5451 TABLE C8 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION (SHOULD BE) df ms F P Between groups 2 .2706 .8834 .4160 Within groups 122 .3063 169 TABLE C9 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS OF SELECTION FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS FOR EACH ITEM (IS) Questionnaire Items Df F P 1. Shows strong interest in the position 2 3;380 .038* 2. Has administrative talent 2 2,212 .114 3. Has had formal administrative training 2 2,313 .104 4. Demonstrates outstanding teaching ability 2 3.018 .053 5. Has strong research background 2 4.388 .015* 6. Has an earned Ph.D. 2 .624 .538 7. Has published book(s) and/or article(s) 2 3,370 .038* 8. Participates in department/college/ university professional activities 2 .856 .428 9. Communicates effectively with colleagues 2 .666 .516 10. A department faculty committee recommends the candidate 2 15.171 .001* 11. A college committee of administrators recommends the candidate 2 1.114 .332 12. A university-wide committee endorses the candidate ' 2 2.532 .084 13. A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate 2 14.194 .001* 14. Student representatives endorse the candidate 2 3.242 .043* 15. The department faculty elects the chairperson 2 34.584 .001* 170 TABLE C9--CONTINUED Questionnaire Items Df F P 16. The college dean appoints the chairperson .153 .858 17. The academic vice president endorses the candidate 2.661 .074 18. A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed 3.639 .030* 19. The person selected serves for an indefinite term 2.567 .081 20. The person selected serves for a definite term 3.524 .033* 21. The person selected is periodically reviewed 3.680 .029* 22. The person selected may be reappointed .186 .831 23. The person selected may not be reappointed .617 .541 24. The person selected can be removed from office by the department faculty 1.973 .144 25. The person selected can be removed from office by the college dean 6.317 .003* *Significant at 0.05 level. 171 TABLE C10 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS OF SELECTION FOR DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS FOR EACH ITEM (SHOULD BE) Questionnaire Items Df F P 1. Shows strong interest in the position 2 2.494 .087 2. Has administrative talent 2 .434 .649 3. Has had formal administrative training 2 .470 .629 4. Demonstrates outstanding teaching ability 2 1.769 .175 5. Has strong research background 2 .917 .402 6. Has an earned Ph.D. 2 .067 .935 7. Has published book(s) and/or article(s) 2 .011 .989 8. Participates in department/college/ university professional activities 2 .945 .392 9. Communicates effectively with colleagues 2 .175 .840 10. A department faculty committee recommends the candidate 2 .953 .389 11. A college committee of administrators recommends the candidate 2 .452 .637 12. A university-wide committee endorses the candidate 2 .956 .387 13. A majority of the department faculty endorses the candidate 2 3.109 .049* 14. Student representatives endorse the candidate 2 1.216 .301 15. The department faculty elects the chairperson 2 13.079 .001* 172 TABLE C10--CONTINUED Questionnaire Items Df F P 16. The college dean appoints the chairperson 2 .284 .754 17. The academic vice president endorses the candidate 2 1.917 .152 18. A prescribed rotation pattern among department faculty is followed' 2 1.110 .333 19. The person selected serves for an indefinite term 2 .860 .426 20. The person selected serves for a definite term 2 .590 .556 21. The person selected is periodically reviewed 2 3.851 .024* 22. The person selected may be reappointed 2 .374 .689 23. The person selected may not be reappointed 2 .405 .668 24. The person selected can be removed from office by the department faculty 2 .105 .900 25. The person selected can be removed from office by the college dean 2 1.986 .142 *Significant at 0.05 level. 173 TABLE C11 F-TEST--MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS FOR EACH ITEM (IS) Questionnaire Items Df F P 1. Counseling and advising students 2 2.934 .057 2. Submitting department annual report 2 1.687 .190 3. Preparing department budget 2 3.988 .021* 4. Handling faculty grievances 2 1.014 .366 5. Developing and reviewing department courses with faculty 2 2.416 .094 6. Maintaining and updating department information in university catalogue 2 3.264 .042* 7. Teaching 2 4.733 .011* 8. Assigning teaching schedules and other duties to faculty 2 .711 .493 9. Assigning work to department staff (not faculty) 2 .385 .681 10. Representing the department on college/university committees 2 4.194 .017* 11. Handling student grievances 2 1.207 .303 12. Representing the department to non— university community groups 2 .541 .583 13. Maintaining faculty personnel records 2 .340 .712 14. Recruiting, selecting, evaluating, terminating, and rewarding faculty 2 .478 .621 15. Recruiting, selecting, evaluating, terminating, and rewarding department staff (not faculty) 2 .637 .531 174 TABLE C11--CONT INUED Questionnaire Items Df F P 16. Maintaining records of student grades and programs 2 4.192 .018* 17. Facilitating professional development of faculty 2 1.158 .318 18. Selecting and reviewing learning materials 2 1.208 .303 19. Promoting cooperation with other departments, colleges, and university units 2 2.409 .094 20. Informing students on academic policies and opportunities 2 .474 .624 21. Facilitating faculty research and publication 2 2.277 .102 22. Developing new and reviewing current program requirements 2 1.068 .347 23. Assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment 2 3.476 .034* 24. Providing information for communicating with professional academic groups 2 .709 .494 25. Controlling financial expenditures 2 .230 .795 26. Submitting periodic reports required by the university 2 1.885 .156 *Significant at 0.05 level. 175 TABLE C12 F-TEST--MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS FOR EACH ITEM (SHOULD BE) Questionnaire Items Df F P 1. Counseling and advising students 2 1.972 .144 2. Submitting department annual report 2 .317 .729 3. Preparing department budget 2 .493 .612 4. Handling faculty grievances 2 .235 .791 5. Developing and reviewing department courses with faculty 2 .313 .732 6. Maintaining and updating department information in university catalogue 2 1.856 .161 7. Teaching 2 1.934 .149 8. Assigning teaching schedules and other duties to faculty 2 .850 .430 9. Assigning work to department staff (not faculty) 2 .484 .618 10. Representing the department on college/university committees 2 2.106 .126 11. Handling student grievances 2 3.356 .038* 12. Representing the department to non- university community groups 2 1.851 .162 13. Maintaining faculty personnel records 2 1.135 .325 14. Recruiting, selecting, evaluating, terminating, and rewarding faculty 2 2.566 .081 15. Recruiting, selecting, evaluating, terminating, and rewarding department staff (not faculty) 2 .293 .747 176 TABLE C12--CONTINUED Questionnaire Items Df F P 16. Maintaining records of student grades and programs 2 1.530 .221 17. Facilitating professional development of faculty 2 .949 .390 18. Selecting and reviewing learning materials 2 .493 .612 19. Promoting cooperation with other departments, colleges, and university units 2 .985 .377 20. Informing students on academic policies and opportunities 2 .841 .434 21. Facilitating faculty research and publication 2 .357 .700 22. Developing new and reviewing current program requirements 2 .361 .698 23. Assuring maintenance of facilities and equipment 2 .001 .999 24. Providing information for communicating with professional academic groups 2 .280 .750 25. Controlling financial expenditures 2 .031 .969 26. Submitting periodic reports required by the university 2 .639 .530 *Significant at 0.05 level. 177 TABLE C13 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION FOR EACH ITEM (IS) Questionnaire Items Df F P 1. Getting an additional salary incre- ment for administrative duties 2 .565 .570 2. Reduction of teaching hours 2 9.205 .001* 3. Having a full-time administrative assistant 2 .056 .946 4. Having autonomy from the dean in managing the department 2 .498 .609 5. Having more prestige than faculty 2 5.369 .006* 6. Having flexibility in scheduling of office hours 2 .379 .686 7. Having opportunities for advancement 2 1.925 .151 8. Getting reimbursement of travel expenses for conventions and conferences 2 2.777 .067 9. Facing challenging activities 2 .318 .729 10. Returning to faculty status at con- clusion of term of office 2 .880 .418 11. Getting personal recognition 2 .328 .721 12. Gaining a sense of achievement 2 .706 .496 13. Achieving personal growth and development 2 .239 .788 14. Having clerical/secretarial support 2 8.472 .001* 15. Having increased research opportunities 2 .056 .945 *Significant at 0.05 level. 178 TABLE C14 F-TEST--REQUIREMENTS FOR JOB SATISFACTION FOR EACH ITEM (SHOULD BE) Questionnaire Items Df F P 1. Getting an additional salary incre- ment for administrative duties 2 .146 .864 2. Reduction of teaching hours 2 3.388 .037* 3. Having a full-time administrative assistant 2 1.299 .255 4. Having autonomy from the dean in managing the department 2 .243 .785 5. Having more prestige than faculty 2 1.863 .160 6. Having flexibility in scheduling of office hours 2 .357 .701 7. Having Opportunities for advancement 2 .138 .872 8. Getting reimbursement of travel expenses for conventions and conferences 2 .191 .827 9. Facing challenging activities 2 1.247 .292 10. Returning to faculty status at con- clusion of term of office 2 .083 .921 11. Getting personal recognition 2 2.616 .077 12. Gaining a sense of achievement 2 .335 .716 13. Achieving personal growth and development 2 1.309 .274 14. Having clerical/secretarial support 2 .447 .641 15. Having increased research opportunities 2 1.737 .181 *Significant at 0.05 level. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A Description of the University: The Self-Study, Part I. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: The University of Riyadh, April 1975. Admission & Registration. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: King Abdulaziz University, 1980-81. Aguon, Frances 8. "Status of Department Chairpersons as Perceived by Academic College Deans, Department Chairpersons, and Faculty at Western Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, August, 1977. American Association for Higher Education 33 (February 1981). Andersen, Kay J. "In Defense of Departments." In Academic De- partments. Edited by D. E. McHenry and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1977. Ansah, Godfred. "A Comparative Study of the Academic Department Chairmen and Chairwomen at Michigan State University with Respect to Their Upward Mobility to Their Present Position, Their Retrospective Role Expectations and Their Job Satisfaction." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. Browing, E. R. "The Ideal Department Chairman." National Business Education Quarterly 30 (1962):42-47. Buhl, Lance C.; Jeffries, G.; Lindquist, J.; and Malicky, N. "DevelOping the Administrative Skills of Chairpersons." Presentation at the National Conference on Higher Education of the American Association for Higher Education, Washington, D.C., 6 March 1980. College of Science System. Jedda, Saudi Arabia: King Abdulaziz University, 1980AD/1400 AH. Doyle, E. A. The Status and Functions of the Departmental Chairman. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of American Press, 1953. 179 180 Dressel, Paul, and Simon, Lou Anna Kimsey. "Allocating Resources Among Departments." New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 11 (1976). Dressel, Paul L., and Dietrich, John E. "Departmental Review and Self-Study." Journal of Higher Education (January 1967). Dressel, Paul L.; Johnson, Craig; and Marcus, Philip M. The Confidence Crisis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. Euwem, B. "The Organization of the Department." Educa- tional Record 34 (1953):38-43. Farsy, Al-, Fouad. Saudi Arabia: A Case Study in Development. London: Stacy International, 1978. Graduate Bulletin 1978-81. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: College of Graduate Studies, University of Petroleum and Minerals. Griffith, Francis. Administrative Theory in Education: Text and Readings. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company, 1979. Guide to Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Studies and Information Department, 1979 AD/l399 AH. Hackman, Richard J.; Lawler, Edward, III; and Porter, Lyman W. Pergpectives on Behavior in Ogganizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977. Hazzam, A1-, Dawsari Fahad. "Descriptive Study of the DevelOpment of the College of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1975. Henderson, Algo 0., and Henderson, Jean Glidden. Higher Education in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975. Herzberg, F. "The Motivation-Hygiene Theory." In Organi- zational Theory. Edited by D. S. Pygh. London: Cox & Wyman, Ltd., 1974. Higher Education on the Road to the Future. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Ministry of Information, 1979. 181 Jammaz, Saud Ibrahim. "Riyadh University: Historical Foundations, Current Status, Critical Problems, and Suggested Solutions." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1973. McKeachie, Wilbert J. "Memo to New Department Chairmen." Educational Record (Spring 1968). McLaughlin, Gerald W., Jr. and others. "An Investigation of Department Heads at a State University." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, February, 1973; ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 077 421. Mobely, T. A. "Selecting the Department Chairman." Educational Record 52 (1971). Modeny, Ghazy E. Economic and Administration Review. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Center of Research and Develop- ment, King Abdulaziz University, January, 1978. Molek, Frank J., ed. The Admission and Academic Placement of Students from Selected Arab Countries; A Workshop Report. Washington, D.C.: American AssociatIon of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers; National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, November, 1975. Norton, Scott M. Academic Department Chair: Tasks and Responsibilities. Tampe, Arizona: The Department of Educational Administration and Supervision, Arizona State University, June, 1980. Novick, Jehiel. "The Role of Department Chairmen in University Governance in Large Midwestern Universities as Perceived by Faculty, Chairmen, and Administrators." Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1970. O'Grady, J., Jr. "Departmental Chairmen: Study of Missouri and Illinois Two-Year Colleges." Improving Collegg and University Teaching (Autumn 1973). Ohio Board of Regents. Planning for the 80's: Projects for Educational Development. Cleveland, Ohio: Ohio Board of Regents, August, 1979. 182 Peterson, Marvin W. "The Organization of Departments." Research report no. 2, December 1, 1970. American Association for Higher Education; ERIC Document Reproduction SerVIEe, ED 053 682. Progress of Education in Saudi Arabia: A Statistical Review. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Center for Statistical Data and Educational Documentation, Ministry of Education, 1979. Riyadh University Executive Regulation. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Riyadh University, 1971. y Roach, James H. L. "The Academic Department Chairperson: Functions and Responsibilities." Educational Record (Winter l976):l3-23. Sabab, Al-, Ahmad. The Role of the University in Economic and Social Development. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Center of Research and DevelOpment, King Abdulaziz University, January, 1976. Sanders, Nancy, and Franklin, Bill. Departments and Department Chairs: Organizational and Administrative Influences on Undergraduate Teaching. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association, 1977; ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 140 701. Schaffer, Robert H. "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work." Psychological Monographs 67 (1953). Solmon, Lewis C., and Tierney, Michael L. "Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among College Administrators." Journal of Higher Education XLVIII (July/August 1977). Statute of Riyadh University. Royal Decree No. 6, 1/28/1392/ 1972. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Riyadh University, 1972. Stull, William Arthur. "An Exploratory Study of the Role of Division Chairmen in the Virginia College System." Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1974; Dissertation Abstracts International, pp. 224A-225A. Thomas, Ford James. "The DevelOpment of an Instrument to Describe Administrative Processes at the Department Level of Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, 1974. 183 Undergraduate Bulletin 1979/81. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: University of Petroleum and Minerals. University Bulletin, Part I. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Riyadh University, 1399-1400 AH/1979-1980 AD. Vernon, Christie D. Elected/Selected Division Chairperson: A Survey of Two-Year College Administrator Opinion. Hampton, Virginia: Thomas Nelson Community College, May, 1979; ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 180 508. J Washington, Earl Melvin. "The Relationship Between College Department Chairperson's Leadership Style as Perceived by Teaching Faculty and That Faculty's Feelings of Job Satisfaction." Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1975; Dissertation Abstracts International, p. 3464A. Wassie, Abedel Wahab Abdel. Education in Saudi Arabia. Glasgow: Robert A. Chenose and Company, Ltd.; The University Press, 1970.